In sitting around and discussing and arguing with Kelly, I became imprinted
onto a way of thinking which has not been touched upon fully in these current
conversations. I am sorry that I cannot document this view in "written Kelly;"
perhaps someone can.
It is essentially that theories are tools, not things of art to be admired and
preserved.
To identify the incompatibility between two theories is a cause for excitement
and joy. What it means is that the possibility is presented from this
discovery to deduce experiments for which these two "incompatible" theories
have alternate, maybe incompatible, predictions.
Why is this exciting? It may provide a basis for discarding one theory and
keeping the other. It may provide a basis for integrating the two into a third
theory IF, IN FACT, this third theory does a better job of prediction than the
original two (I do not recall Kelly using the phrase "forging a link," but...).
Or, it may prompt trashing both of the original theories and constructing a
new theory from a completely different vantage point, bearing little or no
important resenblance to the original two theories IF, IN FACT, this new
construction leads to better predictions and more predictions than the original
two.
This kind of pursuit is quite contrary to just examining and labeling and
classifying the theories: formism, schvormism, contextualism, schveculism, and
what not.
What it means is that a good theory will evolve itself out of existeence in
favor of a new tool.
If te is indeed an incompatibility clearly defined between Jung's theory and
Kelly's theory, then I think Kelly would say, "Fantastic! You're half done.
Now, what opposing predictions lead from this incompatibility, if indeed what
you say is useful?"
Then, from there, exist the potential alternatives: Retain Jung's theory and
discard Kelly's. Retain Kelly's theory and discard Jung's. Set to work
forging a new construction which supercedes both. And for Kelly, as I knew
him, THAT was pure joy and excitement.
Rue L. Cromwell
From: IN%"pcp@mailbase.ac.UK" 24-FEB-1995 20:28:43.94
To: IN%"pcp@mailbase.ac.UK"
CC:
Subj: RE: Jung/PCP & preemption
Return-path: <pcp-request@mailbase.ac.uk>
Received: from norn.mailbase.ac.uk (norn.ncl.ac.uk)
by KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU (PMDF V4.3-11 #9008)
id <01HNFVEBFMDS8X7CPQ@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>; Fri,
24 Feb 1995 20:28:41 -0600 (CST)
Received: by norn.mailbase.ac.uk id <CAA12158@norn.mailbase.ac.uk>
(8.6.8.1/ for mailbase.ac.uk); Sat, 25 Feb 1995 02:06:46 GMT
Received: from alpha1.albany.edu by norn.mailbase.ac.uk id
<CAA12147@norn.mailbase.ac.uk> (8.6.8.1/ for mailbase.ac.uk) with ESMTP; Sat,
25 Feb 1995 02:06:38 GMT
Received: from albnyvms.BITNET by albnyvms.BITNET (PMDF V4.3-13 #5424)
id <01HNFWANLC9C8X0YDT@albnyvms.BITNET>; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 21:04:11 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 21:04:11 -0500 (EST)
From:
"JAMES C. MANCUSO; PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY; UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY; ALBANY, NEW
YORK" <JCM61@ALBNYVMS.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Jung/PCP & preemption
Sender: pcp-request@mailbase.ac.UK
To: pcp@mailbase.ac.UK
Reply-to: pcp@mailbase.ac.UK
Message-id: <01HNFWANMOHE8X0YDT@albnyvms.BITNET>
X-VMS-To: IN%"pcp@mailbase.ac.UK"
X-VMS-Cc: JCM61
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-List: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
Precedence: list
Jon, and other PCP Network Participants:
Yes, from my constructions system, as I see the basis of my commitment
to constructionism, the systems of Jung and Kelly derive from incompatible
foundational assumptions. Sorry if I didn't make that clear -- I am, indeed,
speaking from my construction system, and I would like to reach a consensually
validatable construction which would allow us to work from the proposition that
these aforementioned theories do derive from incompatible systems.
I could take the time to elaborate on why -- from my construction
system -- these two theories are incompatible. I did suggest that I regard PCP
as a position which is based on a contextualist ontology. When I have tried to
read Jung, I found myself objecting to the assumptions of a biologically based
mechanistic ontology. Now, of course, that statement would require that I
spell out how I identify *contextualism* and *mechanism.* I do hope that you
will excuse me from doing so in this type of exchange.
Thanks for calling my attention to some points which I did not take
time to elaborate in previous postings.
Jim Mancuso
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%