🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Bob Hintz (990503.2150)]

>From Bill Powers (990503.1034 MDT)]

>Note that countercontrol is not possible when coercion is happening: the
>means of acting is no longer B's to vary.

Would it be accurate to describe "coercion"  in its obvious physical
manifestation as one response to conflict.  It may be some people's first
resort and other's last resort, but it is one way to try to end a conflict.
I would be more inclined to say that violence is a response to conflict, but
I can live with "coercion".  I find out if coercion is an effective strategy
by exerting as much force as I can "stopping you from doing anything other
than what I want you to do".  I may stop you by physically controlling your
body, I may stop you by knocking you unconscious, I may stop you by giving
you an electric shock sufficient to temporarily paralyze you.  I must be
careful not to kill you or to let you escape.  The former stops you from
doing what I want as well as everything else and the latter stops me from
stopping you from doing anything you please.

So I must maintain our relationship so that I can continue to coerce you
until you learn what I want you to do and you do it whenever I want you to
do it.  The learning is something the coercee must do in order to escape the
immediate and on-going and (typically) unpleasant control I am exercising of
over any other behavior (your qo, my qi that differs from my reference
signal (I don't know the proper abbreviation) regarding your qo).  I must be
willing and able to continue my coercion until the learning occurs,
otherwise I merely teach you that you can outlast me.  I cannot make you
learn what you need to know.  In fact as Rick has pointed out I may not even
know what you need to learn because the reference signals that would allow
you to do it are not the same as the reference signals that allow me to see
it and be satisfied that you have done it.

(I would propose that coercion as an individual activity is the use of force
which is being demonstrated to be overwhelming to a particular other who
experiences being overwhelmed and thus can imagine it happening again.  A
coercive relationship is not established until the other learns what is
required and routinely attempts to comply when the coercer requires
compliance.)

This requires some kind of signal that allows me to tell you to do it or to
let you know that you are not doing it quite right any more and you better
shape up.  The signal may be totally unrecognizable by anyone other than the
two participants, so an observer would not know what has happened between
these two in the past and would not know how I happen to be able to tell you
what to do. In fact an observer might not notice that I am telling you what
to do depending upon the uniqueness of the signal we are using.

Does this seem like what you are saying - I think it is the learning part
that has gotten left out or gone unnoticed in discussions of overwhelming
force or threat.  Some people simply never learn what a coercer is teaching,
some simply refuse and may be killed, some escape, and some are successful
at adopting the coercers perspective and become excellent slaves.

Rick, I will attempt to answer your #3 question, as I certainly do believe
it is an important point of this whole discussion.

bob