From [Marc Abrams (980502.1351)
Just some questions and thoughts about the latest threads.
My thanks to Rick, Bill and Tim for being patient and lucid. I think
you guys were terrific and I for one "learned" a few things.
Is it safe to say at this point that "coercion", "conflict", and
"contingencies" are all "types" or "classes" of _disturbances_?
Dags repost of BPs post to Kent McClelland was terrific. Nice touch
Dag.
Bruce Nevin brings up a very important point. Bill has been
exasperated by this and I don't think a whole lot of people really
understand it. Where are the _boundaries_ to "Understanding" PCT. The
model as envisioned and researched by Bill, Rick, Tom, et. al. has to
do with the functioning _not_ of a single control system, but of a
multitude of internal control systems organized hierarchically. The
consequences of this is that there is _a lot_ of _interaction_ between
control systems, both _internal_ to the organism and _external_
I.e. to the environment and other collections of control systems )
The focus of Bills work is in trying to understand and know _how_ and
_why_ the control systems are organized and function as they do
_internally_. This is not to say that _external_ interactions are not
important. It just is not the _current_ focus of Bill's work. I think
Bill is justified in being concerned about losing the "focus" of his
work. If "discussing" Perceptual Control Systems is the purpose of
CSGnet exactly where do the interactions end?, at what level of
aggregation?
Marc