[From Bob Clark (930620.20:15 EDT)]
Sorry to be slow in responding, but my activity with the City of
Forest Park is keeping me pretty busy -- attending several Commision
and Committee meetings, helping compose a proposed Ordinance, etc.
Bill Powers (930613.2200 MDT)
Tom Bourbon (930614.0840)
I guess I inferred too much from Bill's remark:
This is a fundamental design defect; it creates conflict
automatically.
You ask:
What does not liking them, or who created them, have to do with
anything?
"Liking, etc" relates to the vehemence to be expected in discussion.
Of course it has nothing to do with the operation of the system
considered.
Yet:
I guess that as an engineer, I am pained when people cooperate in an
attempt to achieve common goals using means that will almost
certainly, in the end, frustrate the attempt.
I, too, Bill, am concerned when tasks are not well done -- but I still
struggle to avoid having my own "perfectionism" interfere with moving
ahead.
Your last few remarks suggest that we are, indeed, in very close
agreement, about the location of Social Control Systems. Thus:
The only important place where they exist is in the minds of the
affected individuals, especially the participating individuals.
Yes, exactly.
Tom Bourbon (930614.0840).
You also seem to be agreeing with this view where you say:
Their physical existence is tenuous to the point of non-existence.
As you say,
"The only important place where thy exist is in the minds of the
affected individuals, especially the participating individuals."
Continuing with Bill:
"Real" or not, I think we can learn a great deal about how people
think about and control their environments by studying their
Social Control Systems.
Skipping a paragraph:
Of course when you say "their" social control systems, you probably
mean each person's conception of a social control system -- so my
proposal agrees with yours.
You refer to "traditionally ... in terms of metaphors," in the
paragraph "skipped" above. You suggest working with "a model intended
to be literally true," yes, of course, that is what I am trying to do.
Comment, in passing: I have been somewhat uncertain about the use of
"modelling" in reference to the HPCT. Checking my dictionary, I have
no quarrel with this. I am concerned with possible confusion with
"metaphors" and "analogies," which are perfectly good words, but
defined as differing in some significant way with the object (idea,
procedure, system, etc) at hand. I prefer "example" as an
equivalent, but somewhat more familiar term for the concept in
question.
For example, to me a "Social Control System" is an "example" of a
Hierarchical Negative Feedback Control System. It may not work very
well, it may have assorted defects, it may be loaded with conflicts,
but I think any Social Control System is such an example.
To elaborate: to be considered a "Social Control System," it must be
composed of elements each of which is individually an HPC System.
Each of the elements must include, somewhere within its hierarchy,
the essential Rules, Customs, Procedures, etc defined by the specific
SCS the element has accepted. This, in no way, precludes any
individual from disagreeing, opposing, etc the system as he
understands it. The Rules, etc, defining the SCS need not be written
down, but often are. Such writing is, in essence, an extension of
individual memories, and can be very helpful.
In terms of the current, "Official," Orders, these Rules, etc. will
include some Configurations, some Transitions, some Sequences (or
Events), some Relationships, and some Programs. Some Principles may
or may not be included, as well as some System Concepts.
This is logical and internally consistent. But hard to work with and
hard to communicate to ordinary people.
This is among the several reasons I have suggested alternative
identifications for some of the Orders. Here, the relevant Order in
my suggested sequence is Sixth Order, Interpersonal Relationships.
Non-personal Relationships would appear elsewhere. In addition to
fully developed Social Control Systems, Sixth Order would include
incidental customs: hand shaking on introduction, sometimes using
given names vs formal names, driving on the right hand side (in the
US), saying "Please" and "Thank you" at times. Many verbal
interactions, theoretical discussions, etc.
Interestingly, Sixth Order and higher Orders would be irrelevant for
Robinson Crusoe without his man Friday, because verbal communication
would be impossible.
I know this is a sizable departure from the existing naming of the
Orders of Perception. But I think it necessary to review these
assignments, and I quote, BCP, p 248:
"If we cling too lovingly to the particular structure in this book,
we may miss the chance to make major improvements in the near future."
More later, Bob Clark