Signing off

[From Tim Carey (980506.0618)]

We seem to be going over old ground now with the coercion argument so I'll
make a summary of what I understand Rick and Bill to be saying and then
that will be it for me with this discussion.

1. Coercion occurs when one control system intends to control the actions
of another control system without regard to the intentions of the coerced
control system.

2. The coercer may, in some instances, be helping or assisting the coercee
but this is still coercion.

3. To the coercer the coercees references are irrelevant but they are not
irrelevant to an observer who is interested in modelling coercion.

4. An observer needs to either Test or observe intelligently an interaction
to determine whether coercion is going on.

5. Instead of doing #3 you can just look at the rules of the organisation
that the two people are a part of and then #1 doesn't matter either. If the
organisation has rules that are coercive then it is a coercive system and
everyone in it is coercive.

6. Even when people are doing what they want within a coercive system,
there is still coercion going on because everyone is always aware that
force can be used at anytime to control people's actions.

7. There is some disagreement on what type of strength is used to coerce
people. Bill maintains that only physical strength is used (unless someone
has a gun or something) whereas Rick states that intellectuall strength can
be used as well.

8. If an organisation has rules that prohibit the use of force then this is
still coercion because it is coercing it's participants to be noncoercive.

9. If you disagree with these points you are dishonest and you will never
be able to deal with coercion until you realise that these points are
correct.

10. Coercion is not a dirty word it is just a process.

11. If you live anywhere that has rules then you are living in a coercive
system.

That's my current take on the official PCT version of coercion.

My idea about coercion is: forcing someone to do something against their
will. If they go along with what you want you're not coercing them, if they
don't then you must coerce them to achieve what you want to achieve.

I guess I'll just have to get used to the fact that in Bill's and Rick's
opinions I'm dishonest.

Thanks for your patience and persistence. I think now I understand where
you're coming from, I just think something different.

Cheers,

Tim

[From Rick Marken (980505.1510)]

Tim Carey (980506.0618)

1. Coercion occurs when one control system intends to control
the actions of another control system without regard to the
intentions of the coerced control system.

You got it!

2. The coercer may, in some instances, be helping or assisting
the coercee but this is still coercion.

Righto. I helped my kids by keeping them from getting hit by
a car but I was still coercing them.

7. There is some disagreement on what type of strength is used to

coerce people. Bill maintains that only physical strength is
used (unless someone has a gun or something) whereas Rick states
that intellectual strength can be used as well.

I was wrong. Intellectuial strength is used to do the kind of
contingency-based manipulation Bruce Abbott described today. Coersion
is the use of physical force -- literal Newtonian force -- to
make a person behave as you want. So pointing a gun at a person and
saying "do it, or I'll shoot you" is not coercion; it's contingency
based manipulation. It's coersion if you intend for the person to
be dead and you pull the trigger.

11. If you live anywhere that has rules then you are living in a
coercive system.

No. There is coercion if you live anywhere there are rules that
are _enforced_ by the use of physical force, if necessary.

My idea about coercion is: forcing someone to do something against
their will. If they go along with what you want you're not coercing
them

The problem here is that people will "go along" with the demands of
a coercer simply to avoid the pain of coercion. Most Jews "went
along" with the Nazi request that they get into boxcars so that they
could avoid getting hit with a rifle butt and being dragged in.

I think what you might have meant is "If they (the coercees) want
to do what you (the coercer) would _force_ them to do then you
are not really coercing them". Is this a fair description of what
you meant? If so, then I would say that this is still coercion since
the coercee's satisfaction is simply a lucky side effect of the
coercer's actions. The same coercive efforts applied to someone
else will not necessarily produce such happy results.

Or you might mean that, in some cases, the coercer knows what the
coercee wants to do and _forces_ the coercee to do it. If this is
what you mean, then this is, indeed, not coercion because a coercer,
by definition, doesn't care what a coercee wants. Moreover, if the
"coercer" knew what percpetion the would-be coercee wanted, the
coercee would certainly not have to be _forced_ to get it. Indeed,
almost anything the "coercer" did to force the coercee get the
desired perception would constitute a disturbance to that perception.

Best

Rick

ยทยทยท

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken