>SUMMARY of thread so far--
>Devi writes weak prose in favor of keeping the old boys in charge of OD
>for PCP forever. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY FLAME-FALLOUT TOTALLY MINE. hd
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ Devi sez, in response to a very excellent post from Dr. Reid Creech ]
>
>> The "not a Kellian" comment is surely a red herring: I should have thought
>> that an openness to contributions from a great variety of viewpoints will
>> be valued by a discipline which subscribes to constructive alternativism!
>> And so, as a person who's always attracted by the possibilities of a debate
>> between two viewpoints, I'm interested.
>
> HOW ABOUT IT, DEVI? YOU v/s ME and BOB v/s BILL for total control of the
> next few years of advance via "Advances in PCP". WHILE BILL BATTLES THE
> 'BANDWAGON' ET AL. I AM WILLING TO PARRY THE EUROPEAN DECISION MATRIX --
> A GENEOLOGICAL TREE ON WHICH SURELY HANGS A CULT OF PERSONALITY....
Er. Not sure I, or anyone including Hemant, is all that keen on "total
control" of anything; and I don't really understand what's meant by "the
European decision matrix" or the "genealogical tree". So passing this by as
a bit of robust humour, without the slightest flame, I turn to:
<the rest of my last posting quoted back by Hemant, followed by>
> DEVI, reading through the sheer "suck-up to Americanos big-time and
> you'll get somewhere as a constructivist of record" in your recent post,
> I shudder and pose the question that you managed to get into the American
> Psychologist: WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO GEORGE KELLY?
>
> I'll give you a hint: like Elvis Presley, you know, he's a WORMFEAST !
The only constructive response I can make is that Hemant is as free to
construe my posting as "sucking-up to Americanos big-time etc." as I am to
construe the moon as being made of green cheese!
And of course, he is, and I am: the wonderful thing about constructive
alternativism is that the functionality of a construal can only be judged
with respect to the construer's own objectives, and not to those of the
external observer, who must try to understand the construer if s/he's asked
to offer any sort of evaluation.
And so the debates betwen opposing positions for which Hemant so robustly
argues really _are_ rather pointless, IMHO, without the goodwill to
understand the other person's basic objectives. I continue to believe I've
seen goodwill in Bob's postings responding to Bill, and not a shred of it
in Bill's postings about Bob.
<Flame on, (_if_ you insist on characterising an inquiry about personal
motives as a flame)>
I wonder what objectives underly
Hemant's characterisation of some constructivists as "Americanos" rather
than the neutral, albeit in the context of my posting, somewhat irrelevant,
"Americans"- they're just these guys, you know? like any Italian, German,
or English constructivists who might edit journals and newsletters;
and what objectives underly his necrotic references to my scholarly
interest in Kelly or, for that matter, someone else's in Elvis Presley.
<flame off>
That having been said, I trust that Hemant and I would both cohere on one
perspective quoted approvingly in Hemant's other posting last night:
<quoting John1305@aol.com>
>>Please allow free thought and ideas to expand the use of Kelly's ideas. The
>>>>internet should encourage greater integration accross disciplines by
>>>>diseminating information.
>>
>> Kelly had a spirit of fun infused into his writing along with
>>experimentation
>> and humor. I feel this appeal is largely missing in the way in which his
>> work is presently being explored. It presently contains many "right ways"
>> and "wrong ways" to go about things for a "scientist" to go about learning
>> how "an ordinary human being" might think about things and decide what
>>>>they would do next.
That's all from me, then, in accordance with the spirit in John's posting.
I'm aware that my response on this theme to Hemant, while legitimate as an
expression of my views, might get in the way of other debates. If Hemant
wishes to respond to me privately instead of/as well as on the mailing
list, he's most welcome to; I shall desist in public on this theme
(regardless of provocation should it ensue).
Kindest regards,
Devi Jankowicz
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%