A very interesting question which Diane rises:
What is the (conceptual) relation between transgression and transaction?
Empirically, a transgression might be seen as a special case of
transaction. This may be true in some sense. Conceptually, however, I
would suggest it is fertile to look at things differently:
transgression may be seen as somehow anti-transactional, sort of
transgressing the range of ordinary transaction.
In general, my understanding of transaction implies that an encounter
of two structures, usually an organism and some part of its
environment, leaves a trace or memory, be this in a new structure or
in a change in either of the two. The same kind of event happens
within organisms and of recent within some cultural objects. The
"effect beyond" lies therein. In evolutive settings, such encounters
are essentially contingent, but not all random, rather to some extent
based on selective affinity of those structures which have emerged
within a common evolutive tree. Due to such "clustering" by affinity
which goes rather by complementarity than by similarity, certain
encounters have high chances of recurrence and thus of stream or
tradition building, for the effects of such encounters, in high
probability, will in turn be part of that same event stream. On our
planet's surface stream building begins with large molecules who
combine and have effects (such as in DNA and protein synthesis).
These encounters and those resulting from their clustering are not
sufficiently determined, rather only limited by natural because their
interactions potentials depend on their evolutive history and is
based essentially on what may (is?) generally be understood as
meaning and should therefor be conceived in semiotic terms. For
affinity means a potential for refined interactions; affine
structures, so to say, "know" of each other; the sum total of their
encounters, or of the encounters of their "ancestors" has resulted in
substructures making their encounters highly particular. In very
complex structures with secondarizing subsystems such affinity allows
even for symbolic anticipation of possible and probable outcomes of
the encounter.
On the other hand, there is always the possibility of non-semiotic
encounters. One structure can be in a state of movement and simply
hit the other such as when a stone or an avalanche hits someone.
Peirce speaks of brute force in the latter case whereas he thinks
that the majority of interactions among living beings and parts of
their environment, natural or cultural, is of a refinded semiotic
character.
On this background transgression can be understood as interaction of
two structures where at least one of them is missing its proper
transactional potential in that the affinity of the involved
structures does not play. It is behaving against the other like by
brute force, preventing its potential of refinded interaction from
influencing the encounter. This can be due to a variety of
conditions, going from certain states of disorganization to what is
usually seen as intentional.
For those not familiar with semiotic ecology and the related
conceptions I try to give some background of and comment on this
suggestion in a separate post marked (elab).
Best, Alfred
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Alfred Lang, Psychology, Univ. Bern, Switzerland --- alfred.lang@psy.unibe.ch Website: http://www.psy.unibe.ch/ukp/langpapers/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:39 PDT