xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
>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).
this is a bit outrageous, isn't it? organismic relations between "liver
and kidney" is hardly a simple transaction, because these organs are a
part of a body who may or may not be an alcoholic or a diabetic. removing
the person from the organs is too peculiar for me.
"a person IS evil and bad..."???????
what about a person is subjected to kinds of social relationships that
produce malformed perspectives about safety and sociality? (CHILD ABUSE -
heellllooooooo!!)
what about the thousands of "persons" who are severely and viciously
violated as children, or who are raised in violent and impoverished urban
environments, or who are witnesses to kinds of extreme family violence,
and who are subjected to kinds of torture and violence in a variety of
heinous forms; what about the ways a person who, in the processes of
identification, develops patterns that can only enact and re-enact this
violence in an effort to complete the desire for self-identification?
i mean, does anyone here sincerely accept that people are "evil and bad"?
or that social interactions participate in the development of pathological
behaviours?
people who "make evil"....? what the hell does that mean? how does someone
"make" evil?
what IS evil anyway? what is BAD?
ought there not be some qualifications towards the human condition when
offering
analogies to prove abstract conceptions from 19th century philosophies
that burrow into
the consciousness?
judy writes, in response to the quote about evil and bad people:
"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?
i agree - transactions are simple-directional (ahistorical) activity, and
this - while appealing to the traditional pleasures derived from simple
cause-effect scenarios - does little to cultivate a sophisticated
understanding of the human condition in the social world.
if "transaction" is a reference to "transactional analysis" from the early
1970s (or '60s?)
then perhaps "transaction" is intended to mean something other than
trading.
but it is, most commonly, a capitalist reference to trade. inserting this
into
these kinds of discourses is a bit discomforting to me.
diane
**********************************************************************
:point where everything listens.
and i slow down, learning how to
enter - implicate and unspoken (still) heart-of-the-world.
(Daphne Marlatt, "Coming to you")
***********************************************************************
diane celia hodges
university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction
==================== ==================== =======================
university of colorado, denver, school of education
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:38 PDT