Something's Happening Here

The elided footnote in that long quotation from Kent’s Handbook chapter talks about how work can be destructive, but a crew wrecking a building or even a terrorist bombing has a purpose of clearing away an established structure (and the environmental feedback paths that it enables) so that it can be replaced with something else.

Even in these cases, however, the evidence of work having been done is provided by perceptible changes in the physical environment, changes that allow for the better control of the perceptions defining the purpose of the work. As I will argue below, changes in the physical environment that promote the control of some perceptions will ordinarily make a range of other perceptions harder to control in that environment. By the same token, the destabilization of portions of the physical environment that have been stabilized to facilitate the control of some perceptions may clear the way for the control of other perceptions, as when workers tear down buildings so that others may be built. How any given change in the physical environment is to be evaluated depends entirely on the perceptions one seeks to control.

Robert Moses famously, or infamously, directed the destruction of neighborhoods (effectively, small villages abutting each other) in New York City for the purpose of ever expanding building more and more highways for cars. Beginning in the 1930s, he arranged to be in charge of the Triborough Bridge Authority and a number of other toll-collecting authorities which funded his projects, and which were were never subject to voters on any ballot. His plan for a Lower Manhattan Expressway, the 10-lane LOMAX, would have gone through Greenwich Village, Washington Square, and most of SoHo and Little Italy. Jane Jacobs, a journalist in Greenwich Village, was a focal organizer of political opposition which defeated him for the first time in over 30 years.

Fascism rises when individuals seek exemption from exposure to collective control and circumvents and destroys the customs, norms, laws, and other institutions which enable collective control. Oligarchy limits collective control (affecting everybody) to a few, the oligo or ‘few’ who rule. Authoritarianism limits control to the authoritarian dictating what the obedient followers shall collectively control (affecting everybody).

Democracy rises to the extent that everyone affected by collective control have influence in it. A neat trick that we humans haven’t yet quite got the hang of, but we have learned how to create and maintain some social institutions that facilitate an approximation. Voting is a central institution, and the ballot or list of issues to be decided at a particular time. Crucially, democracy requires everybody affected — and ultimately that’s everybody — to participate in voting and in collective maintenance of the institutions that enable definition of issues and voting on them.

In Athens and Rome only the wealthy could vote, and anyway nobody else could take time out from making a living. To get around this problem we elect representatives to do the hammering out of bills to vote on. With low turnout to vote due to disaffection, disinterest, or just tied down to the wage slave wheel of breaka-da-rocks-to-maka-da-money-to-buy-da-bread-to-give-me-da-strength-to-breaka-da-rocks, the representatives become at best technocrats cobbling together what keeps the wheels rolling and keeps campaign donations up to pay for those marvelous tools of rhetoric persuading those who do vote to keep them in office. At worst, we have the autocrat directing use of those marvelous rhetorical tools to persuade people that voting is meaningless, democracy is a naive utopian fantasy that can never work, and to dismember the customs, norms, laws, and other institutions which enable collective control.

What we see in Minneapolis is neighbors taking care of neighbors. And learning from one another, like learning from the first guy who put on a whistle and blew it to alert his Latino section of Chicago. That’s where collective control starts. That 10-lane dictatorship isn’t coming through my village. Or yours. Or that village over there.

We’ve still got to figure out how to do it on a bigger scale, through collective influence on elected representatives. And that means build back better, collectively build customs, norms, laws, and other institutions with more oversight, collective oversight, over those representatives. Quis custodiet hos custodes? Nos omnes.

At the fascist end of the spectrum, the autocrat specifies the CVs and reference values for collective control.

Having an enemy is a reciprocal protection racket by which autocrats enable each other to thrive.

I just saw my local high school’s production of “Hadestown”, a new take on Orpheus and Eurydice. Creator Anaïs Mitchell nails it with this song, “Why we build the wall”.
(listen)
This song was written in 2006, in the very first draft of “Hadestown”. It was not written about Trump and MAGA. Trump and MAGA are enacting the same archetypes which the song and the musical express. (Mitchell in Huffpost in 2016)

Why we build the wall

[HADES]
Why do we build the wall, my children, my children?
Why do we build the wall?

[ALL TOGETHER]
Why do we build the wall?
We build the wall to keep us free
That’s why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free

[HADES]
How does the wall keep us free, my children, my children?
How does the wall keep us free?

[ALL TOGETHER]
How does the wall keep us free?
The wall keeps out the enemy
And we build the wall to keep us free
That’s why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free

[HADES]
Who do we call the enemy, my children, my children?
Who do we call the enemy?

[ALL TOGETHER]
Who do we call the enemy?
The enemy is poverty
And the wall keeps out the enemy
And we build the wall to keep us free
That’s why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free

[HADES]
Because we have and they have not, my children, my children
Because they want what we have got

[ALL TOGETHER]
Because we have and they have not
Because they want what we have got
The enemy is poverty
And the wall keeps out the enemy
And we build the wall to keep us free
That’s why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free

[HADES]
What do we have that they should want, my children, my children?
What do we have that they should want?

[ALL TOGETHER]
What do we have that they should want?
We have a wall to work upon
We have work and they have none
And our work is never done
My children, my children
And the war is never won
The enemy is poverty
And the wall keeps out the enemy
And we build the wall to keep us free
That’s why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free
We build the wall to keep us free

So, the “Giant Virtual Controller” (GVC), which produces social stability via conflict, is not a big part of what you call “collective control”. You attribute the “vast majority” of collective control that doesn’t involve conflict, to Environmental Conditions"(ECs). Do these ECs contribute to social stability? If so, how do they do this? If not, is the majority of society unstable?

By the way, I still haven’t found out what Kent (and you, presumably) mean by “social stability”. What I mean by it is “absence of conflict”; the less conflict, the more stable the society. Given this definition, there are many possible ways to measure stability. I thought of things like crime rate and wealth inequality level (gini). But I asked Chat GPT about it and got this. (Note that Chat GPT has figured out, based on my questions in other threads, that I am a PCTer. I never mentioned PCT in my questions or requests. I was impressed.)

I think I’ll pursue this discussion with Chat GPT. There is apparently data in the conventional social science literature that can be used to evaluate PCT models of social behavior. I’ll take the advice I gave in my “Obstacles” paper and look for data that shows relationships between measures of social stability and variables that should disturb this stability. These relationships should reveal whether or not a stability measure is likely to be a controlled variable and, if so, what that variable might be.

In order to create a feedback path – stable or unstable – one has to know what variable is to be controlled (cv). This is because the feedback path defines a function that connects a person’s output and a controlled variable. I am familiar with people working to build feedback paths that allowed people to control a particular variable more efficiently than the way it had been controlled by an existing feedback path. The airplane was a feedback path that allowed people to control “traveling from A to B” more efficiently than the train in the sense that it allowed people to travel farther and faster per the same amount of system output (getting aboard). But was the airplane more stable than the train? Perhaps.To answer that I would have to know what “stability” means to you when you say people build stable feedback paths.

Ah, so stable means reliable! Yes, the people who build feedback paths like trains, planes and automobiles, have some degree of interest in making them reliable so that they will need little maintenance. I agree that societies that don’t maintain their human made feedback paths (also known as infrastructure) will be less stable in the sense that there will be more accidents, casualties and repair expenses than societies that put less emphasis on reliability and/or maintenance of their infrastructure. And I imagine there is research that shows that this is the case.

Building reliable systems and maintaining them are control processes. So the kind of social stability that comes from having reliable and well maintained infrastructure (human made feedback paths) is an emergent result of individuals controlling cooperatively to build the reliable roads, airports, trains, planes, automobiles, etc that are the infrastructure of society. Conflict – intra- and inter-personal – is the enemy of infrastructure-based stability, as evidenced by the two fatal crashes of the 737 MAX. The root cause of the crashes was a conflict within Boeing between management and engineering over how to design a new version of the 737. Engineers wanted a aerodynamically safe design while management wanted a cost effective one. They got something in between – at the virtual reference level. The Giant Virtual Controller component of “collective control” didn’t produce much stability – aerodynamic or social – in this case. I think we can safely rejects it as being a useful concept in social analysis.

Best, Rick

I realized that we already had a rather long (and contentious) discussion about doing research on collective control. I found it very useful to review that thread. It gave me some new ideas about how to do this kind of research.