[From Bill Powers (2001.04.16.0904 MDT)]
As I predicted some time ago, it has proven very hard for control systems
to cooperate, especially very good control systems. The more important the
"shared" goal, the smaller are the differences in goals and perceptions
that can create destructive conflict. So now, with Dag's diatribe and
Marken's departure, we witness yet another example of the fragmentation
that fanaticism generates.
Is this bad? I don't know. Over the past 11 years of CSGnet, I've been
encouraged to write a lot of things that would never have been written
otherwise. It's hard to imagine writing such things without some kind of
friendly audience. On the other hand, I've indulged in a lot of useless
speculation and pointless chit-chat just because there was always someone
to listen and bat the bird back, and have wasted a lot of time that could
have been used better -- for example, by writing more advanced demos, or
taking naps. Too much of the CSGnet bandwidth has been used in debating how
to start preparing to get ready to plan the general outlines of possible
strategic research policies (forgive artistic exaggeration), with the
research itself (at least as reported) remaining almost exclusively a tiny
imaginary carrot at the end of a long imaginary stick. We have descended
into Scholastic debate, and the group, as a social entity, has become senile.
I'm close enough to the age of senility to want to avoid any premature
symptoms. So I think I'll follow Rick Marken's example before I, too,
become a target for those who need somebody to hate, or start needing the
same thing myself. Perhaps the European CSG organized by Marcos Rodrigues
and Wolfgang Zocher has a decade or so of development to enjoy, since it is
young. The center may shift to the East for a while. Perhaps we have set an
example of how not to use intellectual resources, and the ECSG can learn
from it.
There is actually a lot of PCT activity going on in various places,
offstage. People are using it in work of several kinds, although there is
still only a tiny handful studying it for its own sweet sake instead of as
a way to enhance something else they consider equally or more important. I
can hardly complain about that, as I have always believed that the CSG
should have a limited lifetime, and that control theory should eventually
become just another tool for studying human nature rather than becoming a
discipline (or a cult) unto itself. I can hardly complain that people are
putting PCT to what they believe is good use.
I don't plan any sudden departures, but I'm going to raise the bar another
notch or two when it comes to participating in discussions. And in July, in
St. Louis, I'm going to propose dissolving the CSG. Those who care might
start thinking about that.
Finally, what about the people who consider PCT to be a major subject in
itself, without being used as a means for doing something else, and who
want to develop it in that direction? Those who want to discard past
theories entirely and starting the study of human nature from scratch might
start thinking about that, too. The internet will still be there long after
CSGnet. Those who are fearful about discarding the baby with the bathwater
are free to follow the bathwater.
Best,
Bill P.
