The Analyst (was ... Conflict)

[From Erling Jorgensen (2017.06.27 1600 EDT)]


Martin Taylor 2017.06.23. 23.04

Erling Jorgensen (2017.06.23 1250 EDT)

Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employer or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone and delete the material from your computer. Thank you for your cooperation.

Martin Taylor 2017.

Sometimes I make it explicit that the Analyst is not prohibited from observing any germane property of the situation under consideration, rather than that the Analyst has actual knowledge of all the properties all at once.

[EJ]: This still gives the Analyst a privileged vantage point, which I don’t believe it has.

How so?

[EJ]: Let me try to give my view of this matter of the Analyst. I’ll go back to something I said in this current exchange:

[EJ]: The Analyst (whether internal or external) is trying to observe any germane property of the situation, seemingly operating from a System Concept, or Principle, or Program level as the main vantage point. But the means of observing are no different than any of the regular perceptual vantage points spread throughout the hierarchy.

By referring to those particular levels, you seem to be inferring that the Analyst is a controller, …

[EJ]: Yes. I don’t hold that there is some ‘objective’ view of a given situation. (I really do adhere to this PCT mantra that “it’s all perception!”) But there is a level at which we try to view things systematically, and using Bill P.'s HPCT designations we could call it the system concept level. At that level, many different things are observed at once and collated into better or worse systems of related variables. It may even include controlling for a Self-Concept-As-An-Analyst.

[MT]: The analyst has every advantage of the theory that it is using in analysis.

[EJ]: This is true. The only “privileged vantage point” I grant is whatever comes from a particular point in the perceptual hierarchy. And, yes, PCT is a very powerful instrument for observing and creating meaning out of the disparate pieces that come to light.

[EJ]: So when I try to operate from this level, I sometimes need to temper my Passion for this material (at the principle level), and increase my Impartiality (another principle), in the sense of following the evidence wherever it leads. Those are ways that I try to remain true (i.e., control for) those system concepts, whether it is Me-As-Scientist or the PCT-As-A-System.

[EJ]: Those principles have implications for which programs I choose to enact, some of which have to do with Logical-Analysis, and others to do with Clear-Communication. Notice, my hierarchy hasn’t even gotten yet down to the categories of Gain or Slowing Factor, or the relationships of the Equations of PCT, that you allude to.

[EJ]: I think your notion of “a practical Analyst” is close to what I am getting at here, whose means of observing “cannot be different from the perceiving abilities that are involved in ordinary control,” as shaped by the different levels of the HPCT hierarchy. That’s how I see it, at any rate.

All the best,