Attach file.
--PART.BOUNDARY.0.13091.emout09.mail.aol.com.827158600
Content-ID: <0_13091_827158600@emout09.mail.aol.com.191152>
Content-type: text/plain;
name="TOLOIS8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lois,
=0D
I found little in what you said that I disagree
with, except that you think you understand
me, in general. I do see much flexibility in =
our constructions, across contexts, but I do
not think logic and reality are only social
agreements. You should read my postings
more carefully. You are missing quite a lot.
I think that my most recent posting, in fact,
discussed the limitations of Democritus'
atomism. I said that people are more than
the traits that the person includes in their
wholeness. This is the opposite of what you
are saying I am saying. I say, people are =
more than their traits. This does not mean
the person can not integrate their traits. The
traits do add up to the person, but the
person is more than their traits. The trait =
equation is logical and valid but incomplete.
=0D
Truth is more than a social agreement.
We can both agree that truth is a social =
agreement and we can agree that it is not
a social agreement. Which of our =
agreements would be true? We can go wishy
washy and California Zen and say they are
both, but this is really just a lazy way of not =
limiting our definitions to contexts. I wonder if =
you are taking responsibility for the relativism
that you appear to implicitly support. If the
bandwagon tells you that you are not you,
will you believe them? Probably not. You will
just find a net on Wittgenstein to discuss
your views with similar people. That would =
be a way of cheating philosophically. The
poor mentally ill and dying people who have
endured the incompetence and abuse of
some personal construct psychologists can
not so easily run away. =
=0D
You insist that you simply do not understand
me on mere details like polarization. And I
agree, you do not understand me. I do not
believe you are trying to understand me. =
You want to appear to be trying to understand
me, but if you really were trying, you would carefully
read my postings. You use loose constructs
in order to avoid being pinned down to logic.
Not having friends in powerful places; logic
and experimentation are all that I have, or
want. Sophists have always used loose =
constructs, basing their claims to authority =
on their social connections and elite
understanding. It keeps things vague, so
that insinuating impressions can be turned
to, in a pinch, if a gadfly comes along and
insists on being understood. This is typical
of the bandwagon. Bob Neimeyer did the
same thing when he dismissed my objections
to death threat theory, saying simply that I did
not understand construct theory (and he, the
master, did). This kind of rudeness is common
among construct theorists. It is why most of the
PCP folks are still not addressing my points.
Almost all refuse even to address me personally.
What do you think of the fact that if someone like
me gives them a taste of their own medicine,
using loose images, they act insulted, stick their
noses in the air, and ignore the little scholar who
does not have the book companies and tenure in
hand. If social context is such a big deal in your
construction of truth, why don't you have
something to say about the way I have been
shunned and treated in such a superficial
manner? Tell you what, you view things from =
my perspective for a while, and I'll read
Wittgenstein with you. But let's finish what
we've started here. =
=0D
Go back and read "The Core" posting again.
Which part do you not understand? Which do
you understand?
=0D
Bill =
--PART.BOUNDARY.0.13091.emout09.mail.aol.com.827158600--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%