Re: Shareability of construct

Greg Bail (
Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:47:46 -0700

>Given Kelly's insistence on a minimal context, might it be with the baby's
>first cry? The cry is a signifier dividing two states (crying and
>non-crying) with very different consequences for the infant. The cry makes
>possible an act of construing (that a nipple is proffered, milk flows,
>mothers arms are warm, etc. versus their opposites).
>Although perhaps not germane to Freyd's thesis, Jim's summary reminds us
>that all construing is *inevitably* within a social framework which can be
>said to pre-exist the individual.
>..Geoff Blowers
Cool, Geoff!

A most stimulating line of thought, and I just wondered if it might be
extended a bit further...perhaps to the initial cry? What about the
separation of newborn from womb? Can=B9t get more primal than that, in term=
of developing perceptions of The New. Perhaps such a rift, such a dramatic
demonstration of sensation separating self and other, presents the need for
a social framework. Construing may then be delineated as one approach to a
developing =B3ego,=B2 as at were...?

Just some free associations from an expectant papa.

cheers, greg

Greg Bail, 2nd yr. MSW Student, UC Berkeley,
It seems common sense is not all that common....