>But the essence of the idea that we construct our worlds is that we do
>so any damn way we happen to. There are no rules. The only logic is
>the one we impose. '
If this is true, then there is no point in trying to understand or
interpret human development. In fact, there would hardly be any human
development. There are constraints provided by the nature of the physical
world and by the nature of our bodies. A baby suckles and finds a nipple
produces milk while other things sucked do not. There is no "rule" about
how to construe those events, but I would hardly call the baby free to
construe the nipple in just any way. There are limits that have to do with
prior experience and constructions as well as the properties of the world
experienced.
Kaia sees it the way she sees it.
This is surely true. What is the point? There must be some point to
communication and persuasion; otherwise, why would we attempt to share
constructions. How would you have learned the "languaging" perspective if
someone had not made the effort to present you with concepts sufficient to
allow you to share that perspective?
>
>Others may have questions and concerns, and those are theirs. They need
>to take responsibility for them and, if they wish to query the speaker,
>see if the speaker is willing.
I'm not sure what the point is with this comment. Did you believe I had
said something in opposition to the idea of taking responsibility? or
query?
Bob
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%