🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Rick Marken (990429.1020)]

Me:

> Bill (and I) would like to know what word you use to refer
> to one person using force or the credible threat thereof to
> control another person's behavior?

Bruce Gregory (990429.1245 EDT) --

> You are playing a game here, and a not very nice one.

I'm trying to play communication; I think it's a very
nice game. What do you think I'm playing?

> How would you like to be asked in Germany in 1936 "What do
> you call a person who has one Jewish grandparent?"

What!?!?! Do you think I'm going to send you to a death camp
if you refer to "one person using force or the credible threat
thereof to control another person's behavior" as "coercion".

> Would you call a mother who pulls her child from the path of an
> oncoming car "a coercive parent"?

No. But I would call what she is doing to the child "coercion".
I presume you would call it "Marken";-)

> Or all governments coercive?

If they use coercion, which they do.

> Your demand for ideological purity takes you down strange
> paths.

Ideological purity?!?!?

Maybe it would help to go back to where this all started.

Bill said:

> You have to suppose that the ant is not controlling other
> perceptions to which the presence or absence of obstacles
> is irrelevant, such as scents and light variations...

and you replied:

Bruce Gregory (990428.0928 EDT)

> Well stated. My only wish is that an equally enlightened
> position had emerged during the discussion of coercion.

I then asked you:

> Why is PCT an "enlightened position" when one is explaining the
> behavior of ants but not an enlightened position when explaining
> the behavior of a person who controls the behavior of another
> person using force or the credible threat thereof?

And you said (not very helpfully):

>I'm afraid the point is too subtle for you.

Bill then asked you:

> I _would_ like to know what word you use to refer to one
> person using force or the credible threat thereof to control
> another person's behavior.

I presume Bill was asking because he thought your subtle point
might be that "a person who controls the behavior of another
person using force or the credible threat thereof" might not
be doing what you call "coercion".

I suggest that a good way for you to avoid what you see as a
mean spirited "game" of word definition would be  to go ahead
and explain the point you were making in the post [Bruce Gregory
(990428.0928 EDT)] that started this all off.

When Bill Powers (990427.1644 MDT) said:

> You have to suppose that the ant is not controlling other
> perceptions to which the presence or absence of obstacles
> is irrelevant, such as scents and light variations. You
> have to assume that its internal goal structure remains
> completely fixed, and that all goals represent static (rather
> than time-varying) states of affairs. Your example
> is indeed not a brilliant point; it rests on unspoken
> assumptions of which you seem unaware.

What did you mean [Bruce Gregory (990428.0928 EDT)] by your
reply:

> Well stated. My only wish is that an equally enlightened
> position had emerged during the discussion of coercion.


The point may be too subtle for me but I bet Bill and some
others on the net could understand it.

Best

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken                 Phone or Fax:  310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates         e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken