>This takes me back to my original question. Can we have a construct which
>cannot reasonably be considered core, which nevertheless has no evident
>super-ordinate?
I didn't think that this was possible.
But Beverly Walker's contribution puts me right: and is _exactly_ the
answer to Charles' question! (Christ, why didn't I think of that, etc.?!!)
Kindest regards, and a loving Christmas to all,
Devi Jankowicz
(for those who missed Beverly's posting; she said:
<snip>
>what writers have suggested about the relative nature
>of superodinacy is important, but also because not all relatively
>superordinate constructs, or even those high in the hierarchy, are critical
>for the person's 'maintenance processes'. This seems to me to indicate
>something substantially more specific than one's values. Without these, this
>implies to me, we do not (construe ourselves to) exist. Our very being is at
>issue. One subset of these core constructs is the group that I have been most
>concerned with in my research - viz. dependency constructs.
>
> By contrast I think I could hold superordinate constructs about other things
>that my very existence is not threatened by their invalidation (e.g. in my
>case aesthetics, though for many artists this might be quite core).
)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%