Will you kindly cease accusing each other of bloody "pre-emption"!
Stop it instantly, the lot of you!
You're using it as the dirty word of pcp!
I wish I could bang your heads together!
(One reason for going to Barcelona, I guess. Eek!)
Jonathan's last posting touches on my reason for ire.
Alternative constructivism, as I struggled to articulate in the last thread
in which I took part, does- if one's not careful- legitimise _any_ view or
opinion:
>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.
Said Jon. "Infinite". Okay. But perspectives which allow for an infinite
number of implications are likely to be banal and empty of meaning;
usefulness is about the discovery and specification of conditions,
constraints and limitations under which statements are usable or otherwise
and that's as true of whole theories as it is of individual predictive
statements made using those theories.
You're all three engaged in the valuable and interesting task of trying to
articulate some of the ways in which pcp and analytical psychology may or
may not have implicational connections, and accusing each other of
"pre-emption" is just a sneaky way of being rude to each other.
IMHO.
Devi Jankowicz
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%