> As I see it, Freyd is making clear that a theory of social
>epistemology must begin by recognizing that the individual must have a
>certain basic set of constructs before he or she can develop new
>meanings in a social situation.
As I see it, the crucial word in the above sentence is "new".
Freyd, on Jim's view (I've not read the article) is talking about the
possibilities for understanding the new given certain pre-existent states.
This leaves open the thorny question of an origin, but prompts speculation
about the fundamental question, "from whence does construing come?"
Given Kelly's insistence on a minimal context, might it be with the baby's
first cry? The cry is a signifier dividing two states (crying and
non-crying) with very different consequences for the infant. The cry makes
possible an act of construing (that a nipple is proffered, milk flows,
mothers arms are warm, etc. versus their opposites).
Although perhaps not germane to Freyd's thesis, Jim's summary reminds us
that all construing is *inevitably* within a social framework which can be
said to pre-exist the individual.
..Geoff Blowers
Geoffrey Blowers
Associate Professor
Director, P.C.Psych. Program
Dept of Psychology
University of Hong Kong
Tel: (852)-2859-2378(O) (852-2517-1885(H)
Fax: (852)-2858-3518
internet: blowers@hkucc.hku.hk
http://www.hku.hk/psychodp/blowers.html
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%