From Bruce Buchanan (950207.1910 EST)
re Rick Marken (950207.0915) and Tom Bourbon [950207.1219]
Just a couple of comments before I let this drop 
When I wrote:
I simply did not have that reaction to [Staddon's] article.
I was referring mainly to Rick's description -
Staddon's article reeks of his own references for the way people should
behave. He writes it as though "responsible behavior" (third sense) is an
objective phenomenon.
My perception (there I go again ;-)) was that Staddon was speaking of
responsible behavior in the way more commonly understood, that is, some
predictable behavior in social relationships of a kind that allows society
to continue to work. I also understand that to allow social, including
productive economic, relationships to continue to work is an objective of
some, not all, individuals, and that it is an objective of individuals as
such. To me the issues do not involve supposedly objective ideals, a quite
unnecessary assumption, nor is the situation one of total solipsism and
relativism i.e. anyting goes. The issue is simpler, that of achieving
common practical goals of tolerable social conditions, hopefully by
voluntrary agreements, but sometimes coercive for the protection of you and
me and our children.
It seems clear to me that Bill and Tom and Rick & I am sure others have
common or joint reference criteria, some might see it as shared ideas, in
relation to the social enterprise that is the Control Systems Group. The
possibility of achieving some degree of consensus, in the ordinary use of
that term, is illustrated by their shared views. Maybe I have not been
clear, but my observation is that a consensus of this kind appears possible
in most human relations, even while each of us remain individuals, and this
is a social fact which PCT can account for.
I agree that there are no absolute ideals existing in Platonic space, and
to that extent there are no absolute standards of objectivity. However,
human perceptions do have this in common, that they are all relative to
intrinsic or innate human structures and needs. In my view it is this that
sets the context and requirements for common existence, requirements which
are in some sense real as well as a matter of perception. (Mortimer Adler
discusses this in relation to values in some detail in _Ten Philosophical
Mistakes_.) As Adler points out, we need not be stuck philosophically
between absolute ideals on the one hand and a total relativism on the
other, with casts everyone adrift, but can find a sound basis in the
conditions and requirements of human nature and the universal problems of
the human situation as everone individually confronts these in their own
particular ways.
I guess that's enough. I am not really trying to convince anybody, but
rather to air some the important issues that seem to me overlooked at
times, as I see them, of course, I know! Thanks for the consideration of
your responses
Best wishes.
Bruce B.