[From Bill Williams 19 December 2003 1:00 PM CST]
I trust no one is claiming that words _alone_ can hurt. There is, of
course, a difference in kind between the thrust of a knife and a "cutting
word." One has a brute reality, the other is a matter of signals and
perception. It has to come down to a question of under what circumstances
will words hurt. And, the answer to the question may be similiar to the
one "Where is the loop gain?" If one isn't paying attention then whatever
words are said are not perceived, so they don't hurt. And we at most We
say, "Huh?" If we engage ourselves with _significant_ others then we might
be hurt by what is said. And, then there is a choice-- endure the pain, or
change the assigment of signficance so that a reference level for what is
being heard is removed. I suppose that there are other alternatives.
But, there may be something to the arguement that when someone on purpose
says something with the intent of causing pain that they are responsible
for the pain that is experienced. And, that in fact they have
successfully generated pain in the target, can to that extent said to
be "in control of the target." If this is true, then the question would
seem to be one of "Under what circumstances can communication be used to
control another human being." If symbols can cause pain, then symbols can
cause other behaviors as well.
Bill Williams
[From Bill Powers (2003.12.19.1240 MST)]
Bill Williams 19 December 2003 1:00 PM CST--
And, that in fact they have
successfully generated pain in the target, can to that extent said to
be "in control of the target." If this is true, then the question would
seem to be one of "Under what circumstances can communication be used to
control another human being." If symbols can cause pain, then symbols can
cause other behaviors as well.
Point taken. The requirement for using words to hurt another person at all
reliably is that you know something about what that other person hopes for
or wants, and somehow arrange to dash the hope or deny the want. This is a
situation involving breach of trust, in that the other person has revealed
(on purpose or otherwise) something that makes the person vulnerable to a
carefully-chosen disturbance. So the power to hurt isn't in the symbols,
but in the way they are used in relation to a person's known goals. It is
knowledge of the victim's goals that makes the one who does the hurting
about as responsible for the result as the one who is hurt. If you know
that a knife is made of soft metal, and use it to cut steel wires, it is
your fault as much as the knife's that it is dulled by your action. So,
knowing that a person has certain goals earnestly sought, you are
responsible for the person's discomfort if you deliberately frustrate those
goals. What you do about that depends, of course, on whether you care if
the other person is made uncomfortable.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Williams 19 December 2003 10:20 PM CST]
Bill,
[From Bill Powers (2003.12.19.1240 MST)]
"... knowing that a person has certain goals earnestly sought, you are
responsible for the person's discomfort if you deliberately frustrate those
goals. What you do about that depends, of course, on whether you care if
the other person is made uncomfortable.
I think most people would agree to this. Perceiving the situation this way involves an element of mutuality, and perhaps the notion of communication itself involves some minimum element of mutuality, or trust, for communication to be meaningful, or even possible. To account for this aspect of experience with any consistency or confidence, it would seem to me, require a theory of society. Not a quasi-magical notion of some super-organic agency, but instead a control theory based analysis of the interaction between control systems.
Bill Williams