> >after reviewing kelly`s approche to human behavior we came across few
> >questions regarding the cons of the theory . in most of the theorys that
> >are common among modern psychology there is a significant "room"to the
> >"self" concept . kelly`s assumpsions of the human cognitive structures
> >is left without this integrative asspect and hence my question is how
> >can we accept kelly`s whole view while the last seem to fail to explain
> >what we can expirience in our every day life`s ? (i.e a workink system
> >that intergate`s our belifes or constructs etc. )
> >regards /
> >tomer jacobson .
>
> Chad L. Hagans
> Department of Psychology
> University of Florida
> Gainesville, FL 32611
> <hagans@webb.psych.ufl.edu>
chad .
>2. thank you for your time .
>3. english is not natural to me ( i live in the midlle east .)
>4. I don`t think that what that you described in your reply is a propper
>allternative to the original self that i was reffering to . you
>wrote about the structure that was offered by kelly and I agree with
>you that this structure can explain the stability asspect that we can
>expirience in our self notion of ourself..BUT where is the connection
>between all of this constructs ? try to draw this hierarchicall model
>and look at it with the integrative prizma , when I do so I find that
>you get a good explenation to the human system if we had only one
>construct say ""intelligent"- but we have hundreds of them where is the
>connection point ? the "self" concept in most of the popular notions of
>the human personalety(say ADLER ,ROGERS,etc.) is formed to explain this
>INTEGRATIVE asspect that you and I can sense even now , there is got to
>be a CPU ( like in a computer) in ourself , and kelly`s approche is lack
>to define it ...well as far as I see / know about it .
Dear Chad and Tomer
This idea of an integrative component for all the constructs is an
interesting problem for constructivism. However, Kelly's organization
corollary is one that is flexible, not static. Your question seems to be
asking for some foundational component that connects everything. I'm not
sure constructivists would claim that we could ever be certain about such a
component if it in fact exists. Your question also brings up an interesting
point about all phenomenological approaches. And that's the infinite
regress problem of finding a rock bottom component on which everything else
stands. For instance, with Adler and Rogers, if the self is the integrative
component, then what is it that we use to "comprehend" the self? What would
we label such a vantage point? And then the question continues, ad
infinitum. Theorists like Guidano, speak of the self-in-process, but I
don't know if a constructivist would ever speak of a rock-bottom,
justifiable, foundational component. Please, other PCP people comment if
I'm addressing this issue in a viable way. Interesting stuff!!!
JJ
------------------------- Original message header:
>MAIL FROM:<pcp-request@mailbase.ac.uk>
>RCPT TO:<jonesj@ur.SDState.Edu>
>DATA
>Received: from naga.mailbase.ac.uk by Fafhrd.SDState.Edu (AIX 3.2/UCB
5.64/4.03)
> id AA08251; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 04:45:31 -0500
>Received: by naga.mailbase.ac.uk id <IAA04641@naga.mailbase.ac.uk>
> (8.7.x for naga.mailbase.ac.uk); Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:35:18 +0100 (BST)
>Received: from actcom.co.il by naga.mailbase.ac.uk id
<IAA04617@naga.mailbase.ac.uk>
> (8.7.x for naga.mailbase.ac.uk) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:35:06
+0100 (BST)
>Received: from .actcom.co.il by actcom.co.il with SMTP
> (8.8.4/actcom-0.1) id KAA18117 for <pcp@mailbase.ac.uk>;
> Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:37:11 +0300 (EET DST)
> (rfc931-sender: p16.haifa5.actcom.co.il [192.114.82.84])
>Message-Id: <3353BC4B.5989@actcom.co.il>
>Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 10:35:07 -0700
>From: tomer jackobson <tomerja@actcom.co.il>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>To: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: The Missing Self
>References: <3.0.1.32.19970415210357.0079ea60@webb.psych.ufl.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-List: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
>X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave pcp'
> to mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk
>Reply-To: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
>Sender: pcp-request@mailbase.ac.uk
>Precedence: list
------------------------- End of message header.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%