Blank
From[Marc Abrams (2003.05.04.1941)]
Purpose: In B. Gregory’s posts I realized that I better consolidate my ideas from the 3 different threads over the past 48 hrs.I will discuss, The Lexicon and my Technical -> “normative” “modes”. If anyone does not “understand” what I am trying to convey, please ask to clarify. If you disagree with my interpretation, please post and explain your reasoning behind the disagreement. If you don’t respond at all, nobody learns.I want to learn, badly, on my terms :-), That means to me; exchanging ideas and opinions ( aren’t they the same, really ) and learning the “facts”. Telling me I am “wrong” without explaining why is of no use to me so don’t waste your or my time. I benefited greatly from my conversations with Bruce Nevin, Dick Robertson, and Rick Marken. I have gained new insight into PCT/HPCT and more importantly into myself and my own “understanding” of the PCT/HPCT model. Not from anything anyone told me, but from my need to think about and answer all those questions. It has been an exhilarating ride. For the first time in 8 years I have warm fuzzy feelings for Rick and a new found respect. He tried real hard to dialogue with me and I appreciate that. I still disagree with him,
but he is truly a PCT master, King of the demo’s. A judgment on HPCT will have to wait. LOL. Bruce Nevin was the first to try the conventions I suggested, thank you Bruce, I don’t know how you feel about it at this point, but I felt it worked. What do you think?, and finally dear Dick, 77 years young. God bless you. I hope I get to that age and then we can both celebrate it together.
I hope I started rather then ended a dialogue with you. Maybe this post will help to get you thinking I only covered the Technical vs. “normative” in this post. I tried talking about HPCT but it just became to big. Another time.
- Technical vs. “normative”
I believe this to be one of the biggest problems we face on CSGnet. How do we “communicate” our ideas and exchange ideas on the PCT/HPCT model with a set of common words that have different “normative” meanings and model ones. That is, normative( i.e. standard, or common ) dictionary word meanings might have 2-9 “definitions”. Which one do we use? Well, Bill has a glossary in the back of PCT. These words and phrases are defined by Bill and have specific meaning for the PCT/HPCT model. Those definitions are the only legitimate definition (“meaning”) that word or phrase can have with regard to the PCT/HPCT model. No other, no questions. These words and phrases that are defined in the glossary are what I call the “Technical” words. Technical words have only one specific meaning and that applies to the model.When on CSGnet and using Technical words we are talking about a definition as it exists in the glossary ( hopefully a lexicon ). This glossary is subject to revision. By whom?, Well, since Bill wrote the theory, using his words and his definitions, who better then to know what he meant by those words. So Bill has to be the final arbiter on what words mean vies a vie the PCT/HPCT model. I would expect as new knowledge is gained and new words are added to the Lexicon Bill would like the job to be done by everyone. But we know what happens when a committee designs a horse? In a post I nominated our resident Linguist Dr. Bruce Nevin as PCT/HPCT lexiconographer ( sic?) with Bill as the “overseer” What do you say Bruce, Bill?
Anyway, I am putting together a glossary from B:CP and the 5 papers I suggested as a beginning to the lexicon/glossary. I would like to see this lexicon on the web site and required reading along with B:CP
In my posts I will signal the use of a Technical word or phrase by using a capital letter and no quotes around the word or phrase.
In talking about the model, especially HPCT. There are concepts, words and phrases that currently have no Technical definition or who have definitions that represent two things. Learning/“learning” comes to mind. Learning has a specific meaning in PCT/HPCT science. It has other meanings outside that express idea the Technical one does not. Both are “valid” uses for the word. It’s like finding a word in the dictionary with 5 definitions. Which one is used depends upon the context of the use. Hopefully one day the PCT/HPCT lexicon will be adding another definition to the words we use. In the mean time we must deal in the real world. The trick will be as it always has been to get people to “accept” the additional definitions. They do not as Rick thinks need to do away with all other definitions. They simply need to use the “proper” one in the “proper” context. Telling people they don’t “know” what Control “means” does not win many friends. Words like “thought”, “idea”, have no Technical meaning at all currently in PCT/HPCT. That will change. :-). “Normative” words will always be quoted. That means, the intended definition is something other then the one used for the model. The " " should be followed by ( i.e. … ) often. This is too help define the word or phrase in the context it was used. “normative” words should only be used if necessary or deemed useful in conveying an idea, thought or concept
It is important when introducing people to PCT/HPCT that they are aware that a lexicon exists, and is extremely important in acquiring an understanding of PCT/HPCT. The lexicon will be a helpful “bridge” for people to begin to “understand” the model. Unless they can distinguish between Error and “error”, Goal and “goal” Conflict and “conflict” we will be helplessly mired in word games.
Remember. Anyone new to PCT/HPCT will be bringing with them some baggage. That baggage is the meaning of words and phrases the have been using for a lifetime in defining their worlds. If you think you are going to be able to validate PCT/HPCT by invalidating the way they currently define the world your nuts. It is so much easier to simply add another meaning on rather then eliminating all others. This holds even truer for professionals who have very specific meanings for words they use in their professions. A lexicon becomes important.
I will be following this convention for the rest of this post as an example of what I mean.
Does this make sense? Any suggestions, corrections, ideas?
Marc