> 4. If different stances give coherent predictions for certain classes,
> then the combining of stances is possible (i.e. the
> cybernetic-evolutionary stance of PCP). In general the combining of
> stances allows for more powerful prediction but for a more restricted
> class of things.
I'm a bit unclear as to the reasoning behind this last sentence. It
would seem to me that when combining stances one would indeed have the
chance to produce more powerful predictions, but I do not see why
these predictions would only apply over a more restricted class of
things. Surely, PCP in itself is an excellent counter-example: by
combining elements from (let's say for the sake of brevity) three
different stances (cybernetics, general systems and evolutionary theory)
we would (I presume) feel that we are able to predict over a wider class
of things than if we were just using an evolutionary stance. If the
stance includes the methodology -and- the inherited information produced
from the methodology, then we might imagine a situation where someone
adopting the PCP stance feels capable of predicting over areas/classes of
things that would include thermostats, management systems, human social
systems, the territorial ambitions of cockroaches and the evolution of
the PCP stance itself. A cursory look back over PCP listserv posts of the
last year would tend to support this contention: the variety of
situations used as examples of matters relating to PCP is extremely wide
and ranges across virtually all of the Departments one could wish for in
a University (by no means a good criteria, perhaps, but indicative of
what I'm trying to point out). It would seem that the adoption of a
'combination stance' leads to a widening of focus, and I would then
assume a widening of predictive environment. Help me out on this one.
I also wonder about the use of the word 'prediction' in all this.
Granted, there are stances which primarily help us to predict outcomes
or general behaviour - the Newtonian stance, the astrological stance
(Newton himself one presumes would be using both of these in
combination), the behavioural psychology stance, the design stance, the
physical stance, etc. However, many stances do not exist in order to
predict, but rather to interpret -- indeed, many predictive stances also
carry a high emphasis on interpretation as well. Many stances encountered
in the realm of the humanities, philosophy, communication theory
(Frankfurt-type not Shannon-type) and literary theory have little to do
with prediction at all, but rather act as interpretive filters,
manipulating the way that one perceives the world. Let me take what I
might call the post-modern Imagologies stance as an example (using the
stance manifestations encountered in Taylor and Saarinen's book,
'Imagologies'): if I am in an Imagologies stance, then I will look at the
world (and the media in particular) in terms of an encroaching culture of
simulacra, where depth of discourse has been displaced by an energy of
the superficial ('interstanding' not understanding). The stance does not
help me to predict anything in the sense that I think we would generally
use the word. Instead, the stance manipulates the way in which I will
'read' the world' (how I might react to a coca-cola advert, say, or
the news in my favoured newspaper)....now, we could say that prediction
becomes involved in such a stance when my reactions (determined by the
stance) become predictable to someone who also has knowledge of that
particular stance (so you will be able to predict the way in which I
react to the said advert, given your knowledge of the stance) --
but in order to fully and effectively predict my reactions, you must be
able to also adopt the stance, and when you adopt the stance, you do not
think of my reactions as responses that could be predicted, but rather as
reasonable and worthy reactions that you share: you won't be interested
in prediction at that stage of stance-sharing.
Anyway, I think this has got a little out of hand as I see my vocabulary
veering towards the post-modern portmanteau.
One last question: how are 'stances' any different from
'world-views'/paradigms as used, for example, in Checkland's Soft Systems
Theory, Frankfurt school theory, etc. etc. ?
Chris Miles
Department of Communication and Media Studies
Eastern Mediterranean University
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus