Re[2]: To Jim on Weaving
Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:40:32 -0500


Would you expand a bit on what you have in mind here. I've
always considered constructivism as part of a psychology of action, in
which thinking is considered as an action. I have the idea that you
have a different slant here that could stir up new thoughts for me.


Stephen Soldz

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

>From an entirely different vantage point, I have long been struck by the
fact that PCP (within the narrow range that I know it) attends to one kind of
constructive relationship but not to another. Stated simply, the structure
of languages all over humankind characterize transitive and intranitive
relationships. Stated more concretely, they involve sentences with either
(a) forms of the verb "to be," (b) forms of the verb "to have" (which in fact
can be a variation of the verb "to be"), and (c) action verbs (whether in the
active or passive voice grammar does not seem to be important). To me, the
Kelly rp grid approach, as so far applied, deals essentially with the first
two of these but not with the third. Yet, to me, it is the third which
reflects the heart of how people conceptualize cause and effect. To me, the
latter is distinctly different from dealing with the associations among
attributes (wherein PCP and rep grid have made great strides. But, when I
have made pleas for analytic procedures and rep grids which deal with cause
effect (action verb propositions), I tend to get a non response. I am led to
conclude that I am naive and overlooking some development in PCP so that this
particular idea is outmoded, or that I have not made myself clear. I find it
difficult to believe that the idea is so new or ahead of its time that it is
hard for others to fathom.

Care to comment on the questions raised by these three vantage points?




Rue L. Cromwell