Re: Boundaries of PCP

j.Maxwell Legg (
Tue, 23 Feb 1999 02:40:35 +1300

One day I would hope to see this or a similar PCP technology group enable a
discussion via repertory technique whereby a grid concerning the discussion
could be established for participants to make contributions and let their input
be rated and preserved in a less heated way than I see happening here and on the
wider Internet. Then it is presumed by me that the full flavor of the topic
could be explored until it reaches a form of contention. At that point the
arguments could bifurcate into sub grids for further exploration and/or

Until then I'll just keep on developing the Ingrid software. Also, until then I
will temporize your position by offering only a list of elements or constructs
that I think are fit for inclusion in what's being discussed. That is the
objective challenge I offer and hopefully when a mathematical scenario of all
the seemingly contradictory sentiments is developed then maybe I could care more
about what influence it has on you. But for now, let it be. I will not debate
any point with you on this thread until a clearer picture of the whole range of
drawbacks and boundaries of PCP emerges. Hopefully, the resultant grid
would/should speak for itself. If it doesn't then I'd say it was successfully

Now then I think you are afraid of developing a grid based discussion technology
exactly because of the range of paradox that would emerge. Thus, I see your use
of invective divide and conquer exclusionary tactics in this thread as just
another too obvious imposition on the ability of PCP to reach a form of honest
exchange. For example you do look pretty provocative in mustering the PCP
boundary police with your claims that this is MY grand conspiracy theory. It's
nothing of the sort. There are many many many such activities pointed to in the

Here's a couple of unspectacular looks at the subject if you don't know where to

Ah, but will these links work for you or should they even be allowed to?

Devi Jankowicz wrote:
> One final attempt.
> J.Maxwell Legg writes, inter al., in response to my comment
> >> But you've yet to make the case that capitalism, per se., operates in
> >> conspiracy.
> >
> >Pass. (Not in here I don't.)
> avoiding any discussion of, or challenge to, what is the heart of his
> argument. Instead, he refers me to his website, which consists of a long
> series of pages of further, unsubstantiated assertions which don't
> establish the point either. So why post onto this mailbase discussion
> group?
> Maxwell, if this is how you wish to spend your time after you "wasted 13
> years of my life and more than $1,000,000" in capitalism, all power to
> your elbow (*). But somewhere along the line a little evidence is
> required to back up the sweeping statements you make in your Grand
> Conspiracy Theory.
> I'm sure you wouldn't want people to accept your assertions on the basis
> of "because I say so", would you?
> By my reading, a constructivist position is not solipsist; it is
> perfectly reasonable for anyone to be challenged on a) how his or her
> construing is consistent with his or her objectives as s/he herself sees
> them b) the extent to which the arguments are convincing to other people
> whom s/he wishes to influence.
> If your objectives are to convince others, the avoidance of debate would
> seem counterproductive under both a) and b).
> Devi Jankowicz
> (*) Liked the graphics, though.