Fwd: Kelly versus the Men in Manholes(Mindless Rahel)

Tue, 30 Apr 1996 12:14:26 -0400

Forwarded message:
From: rmeshoul@emerald.tufts.edu (Rahel Meshoulam)
To: BillJanie@aol.com (Bill Chambers)
Date: 96-04-30 11:18:44 EDT

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:21:45 -0400
From: BillJanie@aol.com
To: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
Subject: Fwd: Kelly versus the Men in Manholes(Devi virus)

Dr. Tooths virus. Being apparently incapable of intelligent conversation, Dr.
Tooth from Australia is following Devi's virus. I am trying to forward the
message she forwarded to me. I'll figure this out soon enough. This is the
kind of suppression of free speech that characterizes the Kelly Cult. Kiss
their back sides or they will push you off. Tell me Doctor Tooth, what have
you ever contributed of substance to the psychology of personal constructs?
Let me guess, you partied one night with some pompous friend of Bob Neimyer
and now you are an expert. And too much of a lady to stoop to reading little
old me. Well I'd be honored to read the great doctor Tooth. You can write
can't you?

Pig Farmer
Forwarded message:
From: BillJanie@aol.com
To: BillJanie@aol.com
Date: 96-04-29 17:54:56 EDT

Citizens of Ithaca,

In his paper on ontological acceleration, pages 24-25, Kelly said some
interesting things about people who think truth is what ever they want it to
be. He describes a class of people who think we know reality only in the
dubious terms of our own constructions. These constructions, more over, are
simply our inventions, with no grounding in an external reality. For such
people, truth is what ever they call truth.

But Kelly points out that those who would abandon substantial explanation in
the pursuit of absolute freedom are bound to run into trouble. For example,
when their own subjective views become inconsistent with one another. (Think
coordinate grid measure of logical inconsistency). Kelly refers to another
experience that tends to knock the relativism out of the person and his
bandwagon, i.e. a death in his own family. Presumably this concrete and
personal reminder is effective where simple compassion and empathy have been
lacking before. (Kelly had some things to say about the "last judgement" that
are tangentially relevant here but probably beyond the grasp of those who
think morals are just games.)

Kelly points out that the solipsistic phenomenologist lacks the challenge of
external threats and comforts to be derived from resources beyond himself.
It is a nothing ventured, nothing lost game (my criticism of Neimeyer @1986)
where anticipation is replaced by dogmatic prescriptions. The horizon of such
a person is his own skin or the autistic world defined by his cultish
coterie. The only story to tell will be that which he puts down for himself
and his clones to read. Others will be pushed out of sight and out of mind-
right off the net.

Kelly points out that this self absorbed little man must endure his own
fantasy world alone, unless to share what little there is with a manakin
fabricated out of his own moods. Truth is a mood for the little man and there
is little room for wife nor friend nor enemy to anticipate and weather the
joys and sorrows of real life. As Kelly put it (p. 24, Clinical Psychology
and Personality),

"With no voices to haunt him, no future to dread, no consequences to stir
remorse, he experiences the absolute freedom that only utter emptiness can
guarantee the human soul.

This rather dismal phenomenological picture I have sketched should be enough
to warn the reader that I have something else in mind to suggest."

Kelly goes on to celebrate the impact of questions in the realization of
human potential by saying "The open question for man is not whether reality
exists or not, but what he can make of it."

Kelly completes this section by saying that he personally chooses not to step
into the manhole of those who assume truth, reality, and life are just
fabrications- lies, to be manipulated to the content of the little man and
his manakins.

A few weeks ago I asked doctor Huffman to tell us what she discovered in her
dissertation. I have not heard from her on this question. I did hear from
Devi and some of his manakins. They decided to push me out of their
solipsistic world and off the net by getting a lot of people to return my
mail, unread. The result being they would not be challenged by my words and
they could fill up my mailbox with their little virus. It is my intent to
coil the virus around and let you all share the manipulative, adolescent, and
psychopathic disease of Devi's little plan. I am going to send such mail back
to the net. Eventually the snake's coils will fill up everyone's box and the
archives will be riddled by the weight of Devi and Co.'s solipsistic ploys to
encapsulate the net from challenges.

Let the conversation continue boys. What do you think of Kelly's views of