著者

向井 敦子 深谷 澄男 ムカイ アツコ フカヤ スミオ Atsuko Mukai Sumio Fukaya

雑誌

国際基督教大学学報. I-A, 教育研究 = Educational Studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.31, pp.127-171, 1989-02-18

---

A sentence consists of Noun Phrase as subject and Verb Phrase as predicate. "Basic English" created by C.K. Ogden has only 16 verbs; be, seem, go, come, have, do, give, get, put, take, keep, let, make, say, see, and send. "Basic English" composed by 850 words restricts itself so rigidly, but it shows its fruitful ability to transform a lot of derivative verbs into these basic verbs. The 16 basic verbs could be classified into four categories as follows: "BE" expresses the presence of subject. "GO" shows the course of subjective events. "DO" is the expression of subjective working toward its object, and "HAVE" contingently relates the object with its subject. This suggests that a statement should be constructed as follows: the work of subject effects the development of events, the course forces the subject to cognize the existence of his object, the opposite introduces the contingent relationships between him and his opponent, and finally he recognizes himself as an agent. This circulating structure of a statement construction led the authors to understand functional recursiveness, which reveals itself whenever we come to know ourselves and others. In this paper, the authors carefully examined some psychological paradigms, so that they could consciously refine their terms one by one not as an entity but as a relational function, and they could circulatingly accumulate their hypotheses about our psychology. Their enthusiastic effort converged upon the figure 1, which schematized the compound and hierarchical system of the recursive function. The authors presented some definitions in order to analyze functionally circulating recursiveness in our psycho-logic structure. First of all, "Mono" was defined as something which is possible to set its position as a subject in a sentence, and "Koto" was defined as some prescription which is possible to complete the sentence as a predicate. When a predicate has some contingency upon a subject, the subject carries some message, and the predicate determines its context. "Mono-ka" was defined as a subjective direction ready to carry some message, and "Koto-ka" was defined as a predicative orientation ready to realize its own context. So that, the first quadrant in the figure 1 was recursively structurized as an on-going process, which transforms possibility into probability. "Mono × Mono-ka" was characterized as "Sure", which means "DO" as stated above. "Koto × Koto-ka" was featurized as "Naru", which corresponds to "GO". "Mono × Koto-ka" was called as "Aru", which shows "BE". And "Koto × Mono-ka" was named as "Iru", which expresses "HAVE". Then, the authors arrived at their theoretical base-line in order to build the compound and hierarchical system of our psychology, which circulatingly proves itself as recursive function of "Suru (DO) × Naru (GO) × Aru (BE) × Iru (HAVE)". Secondly, the authors presented the five definitions on "Psycho-Generative A/B Pattern", which was originally derived from O.S. Wauchope, and was re-examined by H. Yasunaga. Definition 1 of "Complementary A/B Pattern" was charactrized as a producing function of living vitality, which is essential to our psychological life. Definition 2 of "Interactional A × B Pattern" was featurized as a generating function of living field, where we lead our living activities. Definition 3 of "Compound a/b Pattern" was perceived as a confronting function of living task to avoid complexity in our life. Definition 4 of "Hierarchical A/b Pattern" was cognized as an absorbing function of living dilemma by means of showing our self-dominance over the opponents. Definition 5 of "Reverse B/a Pattern" was acknowledged as an intriguing function of double bound reversibility by means of pretending our self-indulgence toward the opponents. The first quadrant in the figure 1, which defines the first recursive context in the circulating course of our living activities, was constructed as the combination of the complementary pattern and the interactional pattern. The second quadrant, which significates our behavioral consciousness oriented toward objects as a metacontext of the first context, was given as the combination of the interactional pattern and the compound pattern. The third quadrant, which differentiates our objective, cognitive propositions as a metacontext of the second context, was presented as the combination of the compound pattern and the hierarchical pattern. The fourth quadrant, which comprehends our subjective, emotional assumptions as a metacontext of the third context, was appreciated as the combination of the hierarchical pattern and the reverse pattern. For the authors, a theory should be a recursive, deductive system of practical hypotheses, and could encourage us to keep ourselves in our own position for guiding "Mutual Assistance". Some reconsiderations based upon the figure 1 have told us that "Mutual Obstruction" will be generated when we can not tolerate our own "Double Bind". We inclind to insist on our subjective dominance over the opponents too strongly only to indulge ourselves emotionally so that we might escape from the psychological dilemma. That's because we, first of all, have to have a lot of sense and courage to fix our eyes on our own psychology, and we have to know with presence of mind what, how, which, and when to occur in ourselves. This will certainly guide us from "Mutual Obstruction" to "Mutual Innovation" through "Mutual Assistance".