[From Bill Powers (940212.1720 MST)]
Hal Pepinski (940212.1502) --
Hal, I can see that you're trying like crazy to get the idea of
PCT, but honestly, your "insights" are just word-associations. I
don't know what words like "amplifier" and "multiplier" and
"disturbance" and "function" mean to you, but it sure isn't what
they mean to me.
Here I turn from introducing disturbance as an independent
variable to modeling disturbance as a dependent variable.
Negentropic or synergetic disturbance sequences are those in
which both actors' shifts in choice of disturbance from moment
to moment are some constant multiplied by the product of the
two actors' disturbances at the first moment.
I'm sure that paragraph means something to you. It doesn't mean
anything to me: it's just word salad in terms of any technical
meanings of the terms. You're trying to theorize in an area that
is completely over your head, or outside your field of expertise.
You are not good at this, Hal, and your attempts to sound
knowledgeable only emphasize your lack of skill at this kind of
reasoning.
I think that the kind of work you do is valuable and important,
and that you probably do a lot of people a lot of good. But
you're spinning your wheels in this area of theorizing, and,
though I really don't like saying this, I don't see much chance
of communicating PCT to you. This may mean -- probably means --
that we haven't yet developed our own skills at communicating
what PCT is about well enough to get the basic ideas across to
everyone. I regret that, but the fact is that in your reflections
of what you have obtained from us concerning PCT I see very
little that is recognizeable. This attempt to build a bridge has
resulted in a collapse, and I don't know how to fix it.
Best,
Bill P.