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).
"Transactional" doesn't work for me, but I haven't read the article.
Inter-action can entail dialectical relations; circular causality can not.
Trans-actional connotes what? no difference? equal parity? schizmogenesis?
Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:38 PDT