Response to Rue

BillJanie@aol.com
Sat, 9 Mar 1996 09:40:09 -0500

--PART.BOUNDARY.0.23469.emout08.mail.aol.com.826382408
Content-ID: <0_23469_826382408@emout08.mail.aol.com.135169>
Content-type: text/plain

attach file

--PART.BOUNDARY.0.23469.emout08.mail.aol.com.826382408
Content-ID: <0_23469_826382408@emout08.mail.aol.com.135170>
Content-type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Rue,
=0D
Thanks for your thoughts. I do not know the rationale nor the literature=
on
HCLAS. I will look into it and get back to you on this point. At any rate=
,
the restriction to binary data in HICLAS is a significant problem. I do h=
ope
HICLAS and corresponding regressions overlap in some cases. That will hel=
p
our grid technology, in general, reach greater maturity. I'll get back t=
o
you on all this.
=0D
Concerning structural equation (SSE) modeling and corresponding regressi=
ons
(CR). The requirement of apriori models in SSE discloses the extremely
important fact that SSE does not reflect the asymmetries of causation. L=
=2EL.
James addresses this point explicitly in his Sage Publication on SSE. I =
sent
copies of my original articles on CR to Joreskog, Sorbonne, and Bentler- =
the
major advocates of SSE. They did not respond. I assume there are many poi=
nts
of contrast between SSE and CR but the most significant ones derives from=
the
inablility of SSE to reflect asymmetrical relations between two variables=
,
one of which being the IV , the other the DV. This is the heart of cau=
sal
modeling.
=0D
Concerning your final point. There is nothing in my coordinate grid metho=
ds
(logical consistency & integrative complexity) nor in the more general
application of corresponding regressions to grids, that would prevent our=

using verbs. I found Bergson's Creative Evolution very intersting from a =
PCP
perspective. And from this "flow" perspective I noted in my original arti=
cles
that sequacious extensions (formal causes) could be changed via many agen=
ts
(final causes). =

=0D
I also find Marcel Proust's writings of relevance here. I once did a grid=

using experiences, including a: smell of a rose, b: sound of note A on a
flute, c: taste of hot tea, D: smell of incense, E: feeling in chest... a=
nd
other "active" experiences. I rated Tarot cards as to the extent that eac=
h
was consonant with the experiences. What emerged was something very like
Proust's description of the roots of consciousness. Analysis of the facto=
r
structure initiated a number of personal experiences that unfolded the r=
oots
of my ratings in archetypes that were at play at the threshold of my acti=
ve
consciousness. I think Jung would have approved. Don Bannister kindly rea=
d my
undergraduate thoughts on the experience and was quite supportive. I wis=
h
corresponding regressions had been around when I did the grid. I might ha=
ve
had even more of the active sources of my consciousness unfold before me.=
=

=0D
I do not think your interest in action constructs is as at all odd or
inconsistent with construct theory, nor inconsistent with mathematical
approaches to grids.
=0D
Tell me more.
=0D
Bill

--PART.BOUNDARY.0.23469.emout08.mail.aol.com.826382408--

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%