Three different people raised questions about some of
the postings I have entered and I want to keep this going by
responding to those who have commented on some of the
positions I have taken.
I had best begin by responding to Rue Cromwell's query
about AUTHOR SELF and ACTOR SELF. Though we have dragged
this distinction out in some of our more lengthy comments, I
can begin by saying something like this: I would judge that
most people in our culture would have little difficulty
coconstruing with a person who would say, "I decided that I
couldn't do that," or "I know that I am very skilled at
baking apple pies." I take these statements as quite
legitimate statements, and have no trouble processing them.
When I set out to assess the constructions which
underlie these kinds of statements, I am led to believe that
the speaker has developed two separate constructions of
SELF. The person has developed one construction of SELF-
AS-CONSTRUER. This is the SELF which the person takes as
"the all seeing observer," -- the SELF that takes in the
inputs and assembles them into valid constructions. [I do
not expect that the speaker would articulate this kind of
verbal frame for his/her construction of that SELF. I
deduce that he/she is using that kind of construction of the
the first of the "I events" in the sentences uttered.] We
have referred to this construction of self as SELF AS
AUTHOR.
I also deduce that the speaker has developed another
construction of SELF about which the SELF AS AUTHOR builds
those constuctions. I deduce that most people take SELF AS
AUTHOR to be the observer and regulator of SELF AS ACTOR.
The person takes the SELF AS ACTOR as the event which the
SELF AS AUTOR build constructions.
I would maintain that when a listener has no difficulty
processing a statment such as, "I found that I couldn't
tolerate that any longer," that the listener has no
difficulty processing the construction of SELF AS AUTHOR and
SELF AS ACTOR which the speaker has used to assemble that
message.
Geoff Blowers indicate his view, which would affirm Gavin Byrne,
that it would be appropriate for one to state, "I feel calm;"
the speaker frames his construction in signs that are
socially shared. Yes, we would have no difficulty
processing that speaker's text. I am trying to say,
however, that the speaker has uttered signs which reflect
his/her CONSTRUCTION of the inputs which led to that
statement. When one says something such as that to me, I
would immediately translate it into something like, "He/She
has reported that his/her processing system [which he takes
to be his SELF AS AUTHOR] has assessed inputs about the
event which he/she takes as his SELF AS ACTOR, and has
derived the construction that his/her ACTOR self "is calm."
Rather tortuous, but I can do little else if I take myself
to be a radical constructivist who uses a total proactive
constructivist perspective.
Again, the overall point I wish to make: Persons
constantly engage in construction of self -- perons take
this constant construction as a process by which the SELF AS
AUTHOR [the processing system] builds constructions
[stories] about the SELF that does the acting, behaving,
feeling, etc., etc.
One may well regard the SELF AS AUTHOR as having access
to inputs which the outside observer would not have [inputs
from internally located sensory loci which are set off by
internal changes -- chemical, proprioceptive, vestibular,
etc.] I assume, however, that persons PROCESS those inputs,
just as an outside observer PROCESSES inputs which he/she
can access. Whatever constructions one derives from such
processing should be taken as PERSONAL constructions,
constructed from PERSONAL construct systems.
More later - - -
Jim Mancuso
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%