Hi King and everybody--
If I do not have false memory (but I may), it seems to me that Irwing Altman
and Barbara Rogoff in their article on this type of causality called it
"transactional causality" when cause and effect mutually constitute each
other. For example, a person is evil and bad because he (!) makes evil and
bad deeds. The deeds are bad and evil because the person is evil and bad. It
is more than just circular causality because the two objects has a
transactional relation -- they can't exist without each other unlike object
engaging in an interactional relation (e.g., a comet and a star) or an
organismic relation (e.g., liver and kidney).
Altman, I., & Rogoff, B. (1987). World views in psychology: Trait,
interactional, organismic, and transactional perspectives. In D. Stokols &
I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 7-40). New York:
Wiley.
Here is my two cents.
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: King Beach [mailto:kdbeach@pilot.msu.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 7:48 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: Re(2): III Sociocultural Conference
>
>
> Phillip and Paul,
>
> I think the concept that Nagarjuna's verse refers has been translated as
> "dependent origination," in which causation is the result of relations or
> correlations rather than the various Aristotelian forms of causation
> (material, efficient, formal, and other other that I can't remember).
> Essentially there is no agent-action distinction in dependent origination,
> and agency is vested in the relation as it develops. Thus persons and
> social organizations bring each other forth. This does have some
> interesting implications for what might be appropriate units of
> analysis...
>
> --King
>
> >Phillip,
> >
> >Your selection of the Buddha's verses to Vasettha brought to
> mind Nargjuna's
> >section on "Agent and Action" which you might find of interest,
> if you don't
> >know it already. I think the point of the buddhist teaching on
> this being
> >that neither agent or action cannot be understood separately. Consider:
> >
> > "Action depends upon the agent.
> > The agent itself depends on the action.
> > One cannot see any way
> > To establish them differently.
> >
> > "From this elimination of agent and action,
> > One should elucidate appropriation in the same way.
> > Through action and agent
> > All remaining things should be understood."
> >
> > - Mulamadyamakakarika, Ch. 8, 12-13.
> >
> >My personal interest here being the self-annihilating dialectic of the
> >buddhist teaching (dialectic of sunyata/emptiness) vs. the
> >self-transcending/self-anihilating dialectic of the Hegelian tradition
> >(aufhebung). Perhaps found in the contrasted understanding of sangha v.
> >community/society??
> >
> >Paul H. Dillon
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> ______________
>
> King Beach
>
> Transitions Research Group Office: 441 Erickson Hall
> Program in Educational Psychology Voice: 517-355-6684
> College of Education Fax: 517-353-6393
> Michigan State University Email: kdbeach@msu.edu
> East Lansing, Michigan 48824 USA Web:
www.msu.edu/user/kdbeach/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:38 PDT