> I continue to hold the view that there is little gain from attempting
> to forge links between theories which are based on incompatible basic
> foundational assumptions.
>
> Jim Mancuso
The debate about Jung Vs. Kelly and their theories' compatibility
has been quite direct, so I hope everyone will excuse me for continuing
that trend in the following remarks.
With all due respect, it seems to me that much of what
constructivism is about is avoiding making statements like the one Jim
made above. Personally, Jim, I agree with you that Jung and Kelly have
many differences in their theoretical approaches. However, this is merely
my construction of their how their theories relate to each other. The
foundational assumptions of Analytical Psychology and PCP are not
INHERENTLY incompatible; you construe them to be such. Constructive
alternativism implies to me that an infinite number of ways of looking at
Analytical Psychology and PCP's relationship to each other are possible.
Therefore, while you may construe it to be silly to look for links between
the ideas of Kelly and Jung, from other theorists' perspectives doing so
proves quite fruitful. Better you should elaborate the constructions you
hold about why you see Kelly and Jung's ideas as incompatible than to
simply preemptively state that their theories ARE, in a TRUE, OBJECTIVE
SENSE, basically incompatible.
Please let me know what you think about this.
--JON
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%