I thought I would weigh in once again to this interesting conversation albeit a year after it started. It is in part because I may be meeting Maturana
in a couple of weeks . And I am writing about this in a book.
It seems to be one of the most fundamental questions to explore. There is a PhD paper by Seth Miller that I think is extremely helpful in making sense
of this. In the paper he introduces the Theta sign for a re-entry looping movement to describe the plethora of situations in which there is a recursive re-entry into the situation. He puts this into the context that I think Chad is referring to, that it
is only possible to observe the entire movement from a metalevel.
Thus, the environment as context â€œre-entersâ€? into the perceptual field modifying detailed motivation (perceptual goal appearance, i.e. what you want to
bring about), with behaviour that â€œre-entersâ€? and modifies the context.
It is impossible to imagine, sensibly, the agent acting independently of the environment. The critical turn is that the relationship is not the normal
causal one. At no point does the environmental context â€œcauseâ€? the behaviour of the agent. At the same time, the environment is perceived context leads to the agent modifying their intention and behaviour via the agency of the modified intended perceptual
field. This is also a continuous process.
Thus, I do not think it is necessary to take the choice that you propose Alex. But, thank you for bringing this quotation in the first place.
On 23/09/2016, 21:23, “Alex Gomez-Marin” email@example.com wrote:
Indeed. I am interested in the implications of the PCT asymmetry where P could stand for Procrustean, namely, do we shrink the genius of Maturana or are we willing
to be heretic enough to conceive an extension of PCT…?
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Chad T. Green Chad.Green@lcps.org wrote:
[From Chad Green (2016.09.23.1557 EST)]
Alex, you noticed that, too. I donâ€™t think Maturanaâ€™s a heretic. Perhaps heâ€™s merely suggesting that we need to extend the PCT model to
include the vantage point of the environment. I determined that about PCT years ago and moved on.
Chad T. Green, PMP
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
â€œWe are not what we know but what we are willing to learn.â€? - Mary Catherine Bateson
From: Alex Gomez-Marin [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 3:00 PM
Subject: The Great Maturana: a PCT Heretic?
" Behaviour, as a relation
between a living system operating as a whole and the medium operating as an independent entity, does not take place in the anatomy/physiological domain of the organism, but depends on it. In other words, anatomo/physiological phenomena are necessary for behavior
to happen, but do not determine it because they are involved in the operation of only one of the participants of the dynamics of relations that constitutes it, namely, the living system. It is only the observer, who conserves a double look by attending simultaneously,
or in succession, to the structural dynamics of a system and to its relations as a whole, who can speak of a generative relation between the processes of the structural dynamics of a living system (anatomy and physiology) and the phenomena of its domain of
behavior. What the observer sees is that each of the different behaviors that a living system may exhibit as a phenomenon of its domain of relations and interactions, arises in each case only when there is a coincidence between a particular structural dynamics
in the living system and a particular structural dynamics in the medium. Accordingly, the behavior that a living system exhibits is neither determined by it nor by the medium alone, even when a particular structural change in a living system may specifically
interfere with its ability to generate a particular behavior."