Hemant's posting

R. A. Neimeyer, U of Memphis (neimeyerra@MSUVX1.MEMPHIS.EDU)
Thu, 29 Feb 1996 17:18:08 -0600

I'm not sure I followed all the nuances of Hemant's latest posting, but I
wanted to respond to two of them, at least. First, I am sorry if he has
felt unacknowledged in this mailbase, at a recent conference, or in other
venues; I personally have appreciated his input on earlier threads of
conversation here and elsewhere, and hope he will continue to contribute to
deepening discussion on ideas of mutual interest.

Second, he suggested (I think) that reviewer's comments on papers rejected
from the Journal of Constructivist Psychology be posted on the mailbase,
perhaps along with the papers themselves. I would not routinely do this as
an editor, out of respect for the confidentiality of the author (I'm not
sure I'd want to post all the rejection letters I've received, including
those from JCP!), but I suppose that authors who would like to share these
with readers who are interested are certainly within their rights to make
such postings.

If I've misunderstood the suggestion, I apologise.

P.S. I'm not sure that anything I say in relation to Bill Chambers' recent
postings will be heard in the spirit intended, so I hesitate to even try.
But let me give it one more honest attempt before letting it go. Finding
meaningful projects in life and meaningful relationships to sustain them is
not an easy thing, and it does not come quickly. Finding the right forum
to pursue these dual objectives can also be difficult, for all of us, and
waiting and hoping for some validation of one's unique struggle and vision
can be frustrating. I don't have any quick recipes for success in either
arena, and I continue to bump my shins along the way, as I'm sure others
have. But I would advocate that we extend to others whose paths converge
with our own a principle of charity--what Kelly called the "credulous
approach," and try to accept what others say at face value, rather than
reading every word or silence in a way that both assumes and produces
distance and antagonism. Constructivism in general and PCP in particular
are broad enough to embrace many different voices and perspectives; there
is no need to have them all sing in the same key. At its best, this
mailbase has contributed to a joint "Creativity Cycle" in which many
participants have associated to and enriched our understanding of shared
concepts, methods, theories, and practices.

Can we work together to recapture this possibility? --Bob N.

Robert A. Neimeyer, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
University of Memphis
Memphis, TN 38152
(901) 678-4680
FAX (901) 678-2579