🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Rick Marken (990505.0750)]

Me:

>Coercion is just control of behavior, where the controller
>can and will use force to get the behavior he wants.

Tim Carey (990505.0700) --

> OK. This is a scientific forum if that's the technically
> accepted definition of coercion in this forum that's fine
> with me .... I just take a while to catch on, sorry.

This is, indeed, a scientific forum. But we also have to
communicate our ideas to laymen. So I think it's best to use
words  under the assumption that they will be understood to
have their common "dictionary" meaning. So when we talk about
"coercion" we should assume that listeners will understand
us to mean "restraining or dominating by nullifying individual
will" (Webster's New Collegiate, 1980). This is exactly what
Bill and I have meant by "coercion" all along. There is nothing
in this _definition_ about whether or not the victim of coercion
(the "individual") _feels_ coerced; nor is there anything about
whether or not the coercer and victim are of the _same will_
(want the same thing or not). All the definition says about
the victim ("individual") is that his will is _nullified_; that
is, it _doesn't matter_ (to the coercer) what the victim
wants (wills) -- whether it's what the coercer wants or not;
the victim's will is _nullified_. The coercer simply gets
the victim to produce the behavior the coercer wants (he
restrains and/or dominates the victim).

If it takes a while for you to catch on to Bill and my
definition of coercion, rest assured that it is the "correct"
(dictionary) definition -- at least in one ex-colony;-)

Best

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