>Your description of the two poles,
>_emergent_ and _implicit_, do not appear to describe an opposition or
>contrast, and thus, for me at least, are of little help in
>distinguishing the two posts
Well okay, what I was trying to convey was that both Neimeyer's and Gaines
& Shaw's communications were constructive, while yours was anything but.
I trust that's now sufficiently clear.
As for
>If thoughtful persons reach a little, however, they may find some construct
>>that would make a relevant distinction between the two that some might regard
>>as more superordinate, and thus more regnant. I know I can. What about
>anyone else?
perhaps a good way of "reaching a little" is to suggest that regnancy is a
matter of negotiation between _two_ parties (Boxer, 1985a; see also Boxer,
1985b) and not something that is asserted by _one_ in order to salvage a
shaky position?
Cheers,
Devi Jankowicz
Boxer P. (1985a) "Regnancy: a shadow over personal construing". Paper given
at the 6th International Congress in personal Construct Psychology,
Cambridge, England, August.
Boxer, P. (1985b) "Judging the quality of development" in Bowd D., Keogh R.
& Walker D. (eds.) _Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning_ London:
Kogan Page.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%