Where's the Beef?

Fri, 29 Mar 1996 15:48:10 -0500

Content-ID: <0_453_828132488@emout10.mail.aol.com.25304>
Content-type: text/plain

Attach file.

Content-ID: <0_453_828132488@emout10.mail.aol.com.25305>
Content-type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In an earlier posting you said that you accepted
that I could use some of Aristotle's ideas without =

commiting myself to his whole philosophy. I do find
much of interest in Aristotle. But if you think I am
going to say the soul is physically in the heart, you
are mistaking me for someone on the Aristotle
bandwagon (if there are any left). I do not feel you
are speaking to me as an intellectual equal. You
seem to see yourself as playing out some therapy
role by which you are simply eliciting my ideas for
public scrutiny. There are several problems with this.
First, if you are not sincere in attempting to understand
me, then you will be incapable of disclosing my ideas
to the bandwagon and to those who are interested in
construct theory but not in being liars. Second, I do
not feel that I can question you without being jumped
on by the bandwagon's little savages. It would seem
that if you are a PhD, that you could stand your own
ground. The behavior of those who would see me as a
terrorist is not your responsibility, but I think it appropriate
for a fellow PhD to tell them that you can handle your
own conversations. That little whirlwind recently
suggesting that I had quit our conversation was typical
of the rotten scholarship of the bandwagon. It would have
been more polite, given the fact that we have exchanged
so many notes, for you to have simply asked me if I had
finished. The real point of their motivation (I think) was that
I asked you to try harder. By that I mean, take my
arguments as serious attempts to reach some scientifically
objective conclusions and work a little harder to understand
them- for example, by carefully reading them. You =

might even do what I have been doing- save them onto a little
3 1/2" disk for later reference. =

I told you that I would read Wittgenstein or who ever later, =

with you, but that I wished we might continue in the
tradition of objective inquiry for a little while longer so
that my points could be made. If you refuse to accept
the possibility of scientific knowledge, even briefly via
the credulous approach, then our discourse is pointless.
I do not want your therapy or game show host facilitation =

and you are not going to convince that there is no truth =

nor that everything is true. I have seen too many liars in =

PCP and other places to buy into such stupidity. I want to
have an intellectual discussion. Without the hope of truth,
there is nothing intellectual to be said. To simply say that
we can not construct truth, at least in some measure, is
inherently dishonest or stupid. The very construction of
deconstructionism, is a contradiction, if it says there is
no truth in construction (i.e even deconstructionism).
I have explained many things in the short time I have
been on this net. Things that took thousands of days
to figure out. I am not going to be dismissed by any =

primadona therapist or EdD or what ever who doesn't
like my scarred up face. Remember, I have been
studying construct theory since the 1970's and have
made it my primary specialization. The past few weeks
have been short, to me. Construct psychology owes
me my youth. How many times did I choose to read more
and think more when I could have been playing more with
my children? I sacrificed much for the knowledge I have
earned. Real doctors are supposed to do that.
Some people on this net are so childish that they
refuse to see the things of value that I have developed and
criticized. Many of these people have themselves done
very little except party at conferences with self promoting
sophists who have themselves contributed little to the
science of personal construct psychology. They are not
thinking of the pursuit of truth, because they do not believe
in truth. They believe in marketing their so called expertise.
They are not thinking of their client's welfare, because they
don't care. They think they are special. They would rather
complain about me complaining about being treated in very
unethical ways for years. Its kind of like: "Kick him again,
for crying the fiftieth time we kicked him." They are too self
important to discuss ideas and are offended by others pain.
They think its ugly, unseemly, to admit the bandwagon has
hurt some good people, perhaps very many. =

The PCP band wagon is real and it is plenty guilty. PCP
folks need to take responsibility for
the things their little empire has done.They reap the benefits,
let them reap the costs as well. If this makes them nauseated,
then I am happy. Maybe they will someday see how
nauseated they make others. I will not shut up. Not while
there are all those other little people for the PCP bandwagon
to abuse.
I have explained a lot of psychology and math to you. =

You have sometimes paid attention. I have asked several
times for feedback from you. You avoid confirming any
thing I have said. Now either you believe I am completely
psychotic or stupid, or you are basically a coward, not
wishing to offend Bob and Co. by agreeing with me. If you
disagree, try explicitly saying Bill, the math model is wrong
because of A, B, and C and here are the statistics to prove
my case. It is irresponsible for a PhD to hide behind the
guise of therapist, trying to keep emotions down, changing
the subject when ever possible, when issues of truth are
being discussed. Passion is not the problem in construct
theory. It is lies and lack of intelligence. =

Now doctor, could we return to the equations. Which part
of the polarization process do you agree with, which not.
Do not tell me that doctors do not have to agree or disagree.
When you collect money from your patients and assume
the guidance of their lives, you are making the decision to
agree with someone. Are the things you agree with based
in demonstrably sound reasoning and observation? Or is it
just the dogma of a group of pretty people who suck the
blood out the unfortunate fools from whom they get their
pay? =

Does anybody out there care about the truth and about
the alleviation of human suffering? If so, show me where
I am wrong in all my work concerning integrative =

complexity, logical consistency, corresponding regressions,
etc.. But try to tell the truth. Try attacking my ideas with the
same passion you attack my person. Its ok with me if you
want to call me a terrorist and a cult leader. Its a pack of lies
but if this is what I have to continue to put up with to get an
intelligent conversation out of the world experts in construct
theory, then I guess I can handle it. But golly, where is the beef?
William Chambers, PhD