[From Rick Marken (931001.1000)]
Hal says:
A model is a definition of a situation.
PCT is not that kind of model. I guess my lecture on
"modelling vs describing" didn't make a big impression,
eh?
Why bother going
outside PCT and complementing it in a larger frame?
Because learning how to use conflict to cool down and
harmonize relations rather than heating them up rests
on recognizing we have an alternative open to us
to defining control as PCT does.
Seems like it might be nice to understand how conflict
works before telling people how to "use it".
From all I continue to gather with restatements of control as PCT
defines it, I only hear confirmed that control is somebody else's
endeavor rather than their own in interaction with others.
I am sure this is true -- that you "only hear confirmed that
control is somebody else's endeavor". But I suggest that you
consider the possibility that you only hear this becuase the
only explanation of PCT that you hear is your own. If you
bothered to actually listen to other voices you might realize
that PCT is about individuals controlling their OWN (not
"somebody else's") experience.
Just one little question, Hal. If you already understand PCT
and find it so unpleasant, why stay on the net? Is it to help
us out by explaining your peaceful alternative to PCT? If so,
what is your alternative? Is it that "hurtful vs compassionate
sides" thing? What's your point.
Best
Rick