Re: Hello

manfred m straehle student of epistemology (shash501@CYBERNEX.NET)
Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:31:30 -0700



Where does it say anywhere that Efran is a social constructivism. I studied
with Efran, he is my mentor. He indentifies himself as a contextualist and
radical constructivist using the ideas of Maturana, Varela, Von Foerester,
and Von Glaserfield.

Please if you have him stating that he is a social constructionist please
let me know.


In an Edited book by Neimeyer and Mahoney (Constructivism in Therapy) I get
the sense that the idea of social constructionism (Gergen) falls within
constructivist claims.

Thanks for the other info :).

At 04:58 PM 10/22/98 -0500, you wrote:
>manfred m straehle student of epistemology wrote:
>Lyddon has said that their is a very fine line of decifering radical
>constructivism and phenonmenology. Can you elaborate on this?
>George Boeree responded:
>To keep it simple (which is the only way I understand it anyway!),
>phenomenology postulates a more immediate and non-constructed
>"pre-reflective" awareness, whereas constructivism at least doesn't seem
>to speak of it. In other words, there is the possibility of seeing the
>world "as it is" with nothing more than your biology doing any sifting
>or contrasting. If pcp postulates biological or instinctual constructs
>(which in my mind is a contradiction in terms), then I suppose there is
>little difference at all.
>George, as I see it, there are a variety of phenomenological approaches
>to be found within philosophy (Merleau-Ponty, Husserl, Ricoeur). One
>could say that what they have in common is a view of the relationship
>between person and world as an indissociale interaction. I know its
>confusing , but that experiencing is described as immmediate and
>pre-reflective does not mean that it is not constructed. Indeed,
>Husserl's motto was 'to the things themselves', but Husserl
>characterized the creation of this 'immediate' meaning as taking place
>as part of a flowing synthesis of intentional acts. To intend is to
>intend beyond itself. Intentionality is inherently anirticipatory and
>For Merelau-Ponty meaning is embodied, an intersubjective matrix in
>which one's construing is simultaneously a normative assimilation of the
>other and a being drawn into the alienness of the other. In sum ,
>phenomenological approaches are as fully constructive in the kellian
>sense as is pcp. As to the relation between radical constructivism and
>phenomenology, again we may locate different definitions of 'radical'. I
>tend to associate this orientation with the social constructivst
>positions of those like Efran and Gergen. Is this compatible with some
>variant of phenomenology? Trevor Butt has argued so in the Oct. 1998
>issue of the Journal of Constructivism (Sedimentation and Elaborative
>Choice). He interprets Merleau-Ponty in Gergenesque terms.
>I tend to see Merleau-Ponty in a constructivist rather than
>constructionist light (the differences are subtle but important) but
>the point is that phenomenology and PCP have been viewed as compatible
>by many authors.
>Regards, Josh Soffer

Where the spirit does not work with the hand there is no art. -Leonardo da

George Berkeley's dictum esse est percipi ("to be is to
be perceived")

"We live our lives forward but can only understand them backwards"
----Soren Kierkegaard