Thanks for the message and the invitation. I fear I may offend you by saying
so. But in my opinion you are proceeding to investigate constructivism from an
objectivist base. And, as with all of us, you probably are unaware of it.
Here's an example of what I mean: what is 'information?' And how can you
check out the mechanism of meaning-making, as a brain function, unless you are at
least a neurosurgeon?
I subscribe to the view that we are closed systems, that we construct/attribute
significance/meaning to all of the results of our sensory inputs, from the time
before we know it, and that we cannot help but do the same all the rest of our
life.
Further, we do all this via the process we call language --- or 'languaging.'
Thus we are, preeminently, linguistic beings --- as in 'language is the house of
being.' But for almost all of us, language is transparent, so we remain unaware of
the nature and operation of it, of the dynamics of this invention/construction
process. Only by becoming aware of these dynamics --- a la Searle ---and with
much personal coaching, can we hope to shift our ontontology, or way of being, from
that of an objectivist ideology to that of a contructivist ideology.
That is what I have sought to do, with what I think is some success. It is not
that I know ABOUT constructivism so much as I have been helped to BECOME an
operational constructivist. Thus my interpretations, practices and positions are
different from those who have studied ABOUT the matter. I fear that they remain
objectivists, but ones who are fascinated by constructivism. It is the difference
between someone studying ABOUT pregnancy, and someone BEING pregnant.
I say all of this only to be honest and responsive, and apologize in advance
if I have triggered any negative reactions about myself or others.
Be glad to talk more, if you care to. And to hear from others. I want input.
You are part of my world family.
sincerely, Gary Blanchard
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%