re: what kinds of exchanges: a playground for loose constructs

Lois Shawver (
Sun, 30 Jun 1996 20:53:10 -0700 (PDT)

On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, Brian Gaines wrote:

> This text substantiates both Jim's remarks that anyone contributing
> should have a good knowledge of PCP (else how can they discuss it),

Well, they could certainly discuss it as students. And the distinction
between students and scholars is not clear cut. I think if you want to
restrict your posters to those with "good knowledge of PCP" you need to
be up front about that from the beginning and restrict your posters to
those who have made this a central area of scholarship. It's done on
some lists. If you want a broader membership, then you have to tolerate
their lacek of a "good knowledge".

> and Lois' that the list is open to anyone to initiate a discussion
> (but, presumably, with the parameters of the list definition).

But the meaning of your parameters needs to be refined. I think this is
especially true because the word "constructivism" isn't confined to
George Kelly's philosophy. It is used more broadly. Moreover, many
people who enter here (Gary, for example), are not sure who George Kelly
is. I think it would be interesting to ask people who join if they have
even heard of George Kelly's works.

..Lois Shawver