[From Bjoern Simonsen (990704. 21:30 EU time)]
From [ Marc Abrams (990703.1546) ]
1) Bill thought I was/am trying to "reform" Rick. He didn't think it would
"work".
I believe what you write, and I am sure he said that it wold not "work".
I refer to his
[From Bill Powers (990702.0923 MDT)]
........................................, it's not what the other person does that's
important, but what you do. That's the only thing you have control over,
surprise, surprise.
My initial reaction to Bill was, "No I'm not". But if you see "suggesting
ways of possibly seeing things differently, and possibly changing _how_ and
what you perceive the "problem" to be as "reforming" then I guess he's
right.
Maybe he thinks as I myself. When you are doing this you are controlling yourself.
Only, I don't believe _I_ can do anything of the sort to any one
else. If any "reforming" is going to take place it will be because any one
of us _individually_ attempts to, and works on, the change effort.
I agree. I myself is the one I can "reform".
2) Bill thought that the focus was on a bunch of people telling others
_what_ was wrong.
If Bill is correct I think we are working against our superior knowledge.
As I understand PCT is abot purposeful behavior.
Althoug Mary Powers in her letter
[from Mary Powers 9903.18] wrote
As for purposeful and non-purposeful behavior, I think most (all?) behavior
is purposive. It may look purposeless or random to an observer, and the
actor may not be aware of what he is doing, but neither of those conditions
mean that a behavior is purposeless.
I don't agree.
It is of course dependent how you define the concept purposful behavior.
Still I prefere to say (as N. Wiener) that aktive behavior may be subdivided into two classes: purposeless (or random) and purposeful.
Purposeful behavior is meant to denote that the act or behavior may be interpreted as directed to the attainment of a goal. ... Puposeless behavior then is that which is not interpreted as directed to a goal.
And now back to Bill ") ...
If we behave as to tell others _what_ was wrong, then we put them in a random purposeless situation.
Shall we inform them in a PCT -way, then we bether tell them what we think is correct. (And of course leaving to them to decide if they perceive we know what is right)
_Telling other people what we think is correct implies we interpret them able to they themself appreciate if we are corect.
This is a way I care for.
What do you folks out in CSG land think? I can't believe someone doesn't
have an opinion or two about this stuff? Can we better help each other to
traverse the path to see the PCT light :-).
Does anyone care?
As you understand I am for a professional discussion where we tell what we think is correct, and where we hand over to the other of us to appreciate what is correct.
If we are discussing this way and serve highly professional arguments. then the process will grow.
I wish you from USA a nice 4. of july today.
Bjoern
I manage what I choose
E-mail bsimonse@c2i.net