[From Tracy Harms (990226.0800)]
Rick Marken (990225.0900) wrote:
[...]
I think one reason we get into meaningless debates on CSGNet
is because we end up dealing with PCT as a recipe rather than
as a model. So we argue about what PCT says we should do
about social problems, moral dilemmas, school problems, etc.
[...]I think PCT will only "make it" when it is seen as an accurate
scientific _model_ of purposeful behavior (perceptual control).
I can't see how PCT can "make it" as a _recipe_ because all
recipes succeed to some extent. [...]I have nothing against using PCT as a recipe for fixing
schools, improving business management practices, helping
the mentally ill, etc. I think PCT (the model) can be a
powerful basis for making positive contributions in these
applied areas. I would just like to see more basic research
on perceptual control (and have it discussed on CSGNet).
I entirely understand your preference here, Rick, and it is always
heartening to encounter your enthusiastic stamina and creativity in the
area of scientific research when it comes to PCT.
I'm going to use this opportunity to say, as briefly as I can, why I've not
been more involved with Mike Acree's political discussion on this list. It
certainly isn't for lack of interest: My own political sensibilities
overlap Mike's to a large degree, and my concern on these problem areas is
extraordinarily high. In fact, for some dozen years I argued the very line
of policy advocacy that Mike has been promoting here. Even though my views
have changed, I still must count as "highly libertarian" in most circles.
I cannot agree with Bruce Gregory that Mike is bent on justifying anarchy
come hell or high water. On the contrary, I see Mike as engaged in
attempts to put his best political, social theories to serious test, which
is an admirably rational attitude. Having done so myself, and having the
"credentials" of having actually changed my mind on the topic, let me
emphasize that there are a dearth of good arguments against the anarchistic
turn. This is a contributor to the robustness of modern American
anarchism, which (in several antagonistic forms) actually has more of a
toehold in our culture than most people realize. The fact that Mike has
not changed his mind on this matter is primarily due, in my evaluation, to
the fact that he has not been confronted with an appropriate combination of
arguments. At any rate, rational ettiquette demands that we give him
strong benefit of the doubt on this question.
My relative silence in this debate is due to my sense of contrast between
the nature of this forum and the nature of the topic. As Rick's recent
post emphasized, this is a *scientific* forum. We gather here to discuss,
study, model and otherwise probe a feature as to how the world *is*.
Mike's concern, in contrast, is an *ethical* one. The topic of anarchism
is a discussion around how the world ought to be. It is focused on
choosing appropriate values. Although I share Mike's general ethical
biases, I refrain from attempting to advance them by reliance on PCT
because I agree with a particular philosophical insight which is usually
phrased so: You cannot derive an 'is' from an 'ought'. With this in mind
it is clear to me that PCT cannot imply a particular social vision. It
certainly is more compatible with some visions than others, and in that
manner it may be directly applied in the advancement of social theory. But
it cannot "establish" an ethical position.
Unless I've mistaken the direction the anarchy discussion has taken here,
that's been the quagmire. I'm unhappy that Mike hasn't received better
discussion here than he has, but since the whole conversation is more or
less off-topic, given the focus of this forum, there is not cause for great
lamentation.
PCT should not be expected to provide a "glue" which will keep people
together in an advocacy of an ethical vision. It should be recognized as a
scientific theory, and in this light regarded as neutrally as possible.
Yes, it may inform discussions of social alternatives, but it must not be
imagined to drive to specific conclusions. Even if it is a correct theory,
PCT does not entail the premises of right behavior. Attaining improved
moral principles will be the fruit of a separate effort--an exploration of
ethics, not natural science.
Tracy Harms
Bend, Oregon