著者

深谷 澄男 向井 敦子 フカヤ スミオ ムカイ アツコ Sumio FUKAYA Atsuko MUKAI

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.27, pp.129-154, 1985-03-31

---

Suppose here we have a chair, a stool, a bench, and a sofa. When you are very tired, you would take a sofa for making yourself comfortable. A bench would be preferable when you enjoy talking together with your love. These are all made as a seat, but they can also be used for other purposes. For example, a stool is available as a footstool, and a bench, a sofa as well, good for building a barricade, because the weight keeps it from removal. When you want to take a rest after a long walk, you could seat yourself on a stone, a log, or else rolling around there. Neither a stone nor a log is, of course, not a seat in itself, but it serves as a seat when you are seated on it. An English word "Thing" could be translated into Japanese in two ways; either Mono and Koto. Let's take a typical example. "Thing" in the sentence "I haven't had a thing to eat all day" would be Mono in Japanese. On the other hand, "Thing" in the sentence "It is a good thing to give up smoking" would be Koto. Mono is a thing, grammatically speaking, an indication of the subject or the object in a statement. Koto is a thing, an expression of the predicate. A chair, a log as well, is Mono, a material which can materialize itself as a seat only through one's action of taking a seat. This action is Koto. Therefore, the action of taking a seat functionally transforms a chair or a log as a material into a thing which can materialize itself as a seat. In other words, Koto of one's taking a seat acts as a possibility of actualizing oneself, which we define as koto. Under some appropriate requirements, koto has a possibility of being transformed into KOTO as an action to the object. If you are such an infant that you can't be seated by yourself, Koto of taking a seat must remain as a latent, probable action. A stool can be defined as mono, a thing which can be probably transformed into a seat, a footstool, or whatever through some action. When you are seated on a stool, it is defined that the stool is now materializing itself as MONO of a seat. When the stool seems fragile, it must remain as a latent, probable material, because it may not bear the weight of you in spite of the appearance as a seat, which will keep you away from seating yourself. Mediated by Koto, mono can be transformed into MONO, and koto can also be transformed into KOTO by Mono. In this way, there could be theoretically supposed an interactional process between Mono and Koto. If we take a view-point of the subject of self-organizing activity, we could hypothetically analyze out four directions of the interactive actualization. Firstly, when I am doing an action to a thing, mono is being actualized into MONO mediated by Koto. SURU is a Japanese word corresponding to the DOING an action. See Figure 1. Secondly, when my action is becoming in effect, koto is now being actualized into KOTO mediated by Mono. NARU is a Japanese expression of the BECOMING. Thirdly, when I choose a thing to do something with, I am recognizing it as being there. The recognition that a thing, mono, is there is an action of mine, KOTO. BEING of a thing is ARU in Japanese. Fourthly, when I am going to do some action, I am conscious that I am having myself as a subject who is going to act upon a thing. Activity, koto, concentrated on some action leads to the consciousness, MONO, of myself as a behavioral subject. HAVING myself in act upon a thing can be expressed as IRU in Japanese. When I am having myself as a subject, I will be able to do a thing in effect. At the same time, the effectiveness will be fed back to the becoming of my action. The becoming will direct me to recognize a thing as being there. And the recognition of an object will guide me to the subjective consciousness of myself in action. Psychological self-organizing activity could be assumed to actualize itself continuously by way of this feed-backing route, as illustrated in Figure 1. In this paper, some episodes are psychologically examined in order to demonstrate this feed-backing process between Mono and Koto. Through the reconsiderations, first of all, we can also get to the conclusion, as B. Kimura (1982) suggested, that Koto must be superior to Mono so that self-organizing activity could maintain its subjectivity in one's phenomenal world. The second is that the reversal of Koto's superiority to Mono would cause behavioral retardation and subjective reduction or collapse. Needless to say, this conclusion can naturally be led from the first. Thirdly, autonomously waving rythm predominantly generated in one's looping process of feed-back would synchronize others' looping into the self-organizing activity.

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".