Once again, thanks for the thoughtful reply. A question it raises
for me, however, involves the very nature of, what Jerome Bruner
described as GAK's most important contribution, i.e., the notion of a
"personal construct". You said:
> 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.
As I construe the notion of a "personal construct", one of the
considerations that distinguishes a "personal construct" from the
classical notion of a "concept" is that the "personal construct"
involves a specific contrast or opposition as opposed to universal
contrast or opposition or simple negation, that is to say, in the
context of communications on the internet, a person may assign an
internet communication to either a constructive pole or a boring
pole, or an insulting pole, or any other specific contrast or
opposition but not all of them at once. From this point of view, the
contrast to "constructive", by definition, cannot be everything else
other than constructive; it must be something specific, and each
person might invoke a different contrast. Am I missing something?
Joe Whitehurst
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%