Thanks for your note.
By way of response, I want to tell you --- I hope without being
offensive --- that I am concerned about our conversation. I'm getting
the feeling of being cross-examined, not talked with. You may not
intend this but it's the case for me. Perhaps a factor is that while I
am as fully responsive to your questions/concerns as possible, I still
have no idea what your agenda is/views are. So would you please
enlighten me in your next reply?
Secondly, I am not a PCP-trained professional. I am concerned with the
genus 'constructivism,' not the species 'PCP.' Hence I am openly
ignorant of many of the basic methodological distinctions of PCP. But I
recognize their role and know that they will come up on a list such as
this. So it is essential that I attend to them.
That's why I noted that 'I am not sure what you mean by 'construct....'
Your reply, 'I am referring to a construct in terms of a bipolar
construct as defined by George Kelly,' left me still unclear. Please
tell me, in your own words, perhaps with an example or two, what you
have in mind, so I can share your understanding.
Thirdly, as to the meat of your reply:
> ...it would appear from your brief comment that 'demonstrated
> incapacity' is not a matter of will/volition nor a physical inability. What
> do you see as causing incapacity and do you conceive it as temporary or as
> permanent?
>
> Regards,
>
> Bob Green
Demonstrated incapacity, to me, means that one simply cannot, for the
life of them, produce an action, recurrently. I find it useful to
distinguish between capacity and performance. Capacity refers to the
potential for producing action; performance refers to the quality and
quantity of action produced, from within
some explicit or implicit capacity. I can give examples if you wish,
but perhaps the point is so elemental that you would prefer to move on
to other aspects of your query/conversation.
I hope you find this responsive to your questions, and look forward to
learning your views in these matters.
Incidentally, I am somewhat familiar with the work of Szasz and
recognize that the term 'crazy' often has been misapplied as an
instrument of oppression. And I realize that, ultimately, all evidence
(such as, of what constitutes 'crazy,' and who is producing it) is
eyewitness evidence, hence is completely open to misinterpretation and
distortion, benign or not.
-- Best, Gary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "All knowing is doing; all doing is knowing." "Everything that is said, is said by an observer." -Humberto Maturana & Francis Varela, THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%