Re: the nature of 'construct'

W Ramsay (
Mon, 3 Jun 1996 08:45:47 +0100

Sorry, folks, forwarded because my logging on to the system from home
confuses everything.

> is not
>a member or owner of the pcp list
>*** Sorry, only list members and owners may send mail to this list.
>*** You can contact the list owners by sending mail to pcp-request
>At the risk of seeming smart-ass, another approach to 'construct' which
>may appeal to you:
>1. A construct is an ordered pair of different language-objects.
>2. Two constructs are different constructs if they differ in at least
>one of their language-objects.
>3. The function of a construct is to construe.
>4. To construe an object or event is to map at least one of its attributes
>on to one member of a construct.
>('Attributes' is used as a convenience, here. No guarantees are given or
>contracts entered into about what an attribute is or may be!)
>5. No attribute may be mapped on more than one member of a given construct.
>6. A replication of an event or object is the list of construct-objects
>onto which its attributes have been mapped.
>I'm getting to the stage myself where I feel that there's a need for a
>formalisation of Kelly's framework. I find it intriguing that computer
>programming plays such a large part in PCP, and there well-developed
>formalisms for describing computer languages, there's no correpsonding
>formalism for Kelly's Fundamental Postulate and Corollaries. Well and
>clearly as Kelly wrote, there's too much poetry in him for precision.
>Your question, and Lois's reply, have triggered me into making a start,
>however feeble! (I'm not used to this sort of thing).


Bill Ramsay,
Dept. of Educational Studies,
University of Strathclyde,
Jordanhill Campus,
G13 1PP,

'phone: +44 (0)141 950 3364
'fax: +44 (0)141 950 3367