> Jonathan D Raskin, Jim Mancuso, and Chris Evans-
>
> 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
>
Devi, Chris, Jim, and PCP Networkers:
Devi, I appreciate your comments, and agree that accusing someone of
preemptive thinking can sometimes be a way of merely dismissing that
person's argument. In my view, you are utterly correct when you observe
that one can only speak from one's own constructions of events. However,
I must stand by what I said in my prior posting. I do believe that the
WAY in which we convey our opinions (i.e. personal constructions) is
important. I did not object to Jim saying he construed Kelly and Jung as
incompatible. Actually, I was quite sympathetic to his argument. What I
did object to was his stating that Jung and Kelly's theories ARE
incompatible. This implied that the theories either are or are not
compatible in an objectively true sense, rather than in Jim's way of
construing of them. In Jim's later posting, the one in which he
elaborated why he saw Jung and Kelly as incompatible, he elaborated his
constructions about Jung and Kelly and his sense of their theories as
incompatible. He made somne excellent arguments and avoided implying that
his opinion was the "objectively correct" construction. Devi--you got at
this point when you spoke about the ways in which it is important to be
aware of the utility of one's constructions in various situations. The
reason it seems important to be aware of one's constructions is so that we
do not come to regard our constructions as equivalent to external,
objective reality.
I hope this clarifies my viewpoint.
JR
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%