Hi Bill
I have just seen your message because I couldn=B4t use my mail in this
past month.
I would like to know if you have noticed the exchanges between Devi
Jankowicz, Graham Douglas and me; there I tried to explain my point of
view about the difference between core and superordinate constructs.
Anyway, and since the discussion gave me new insights, I will tell you
what I think now.
A core construct -in the line of the classic Kelly- governs the =
person=B4s
maintenance processes: that is, the physiological constructions of life
and the more fundamental distintions in his social world, which are -in
turn- related to his cultural and familiar enviroment. By itself, a core
construct is neither superordinate nor subordinate -it=B4s just crucial
for the conservation of life.
On the other hand, superordinate/subordinate is a dimension which shows
the position of a particular construct in a particular system of
reference (in the light of other constructs). A construct is
superordinated to other and subordinated to still another one. A
superordinate construct is not necesarily a core construct, and vice
versa, because superordinate/subordinate is an aspect of the relation
that two or more construct hold between them. Core and peripherical, on
the contrary, are concepts that retain their meaning when used on a
single construct -"this is a core construct" =3D "this construct is
crucial for the life of this person". Two levels of discurse are
involved here. We may confound them and get trapped in a paradox ("are
there superordinate constructs that are not core constructs?"). The
constructs themselves are neither superordinated, nor peripherical, nor
anything -they don=B4t even exist -but we may see them in many different
lights, "core" and "superordinate" being just some of them.
That is it, Bill. I would like to hear your (or anyone) comments on
this.
Until the next time,
Esteban Laso.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%