Causality

Causality and Self-Standing Givenness: Reflections on the Relational Nature of Reality

When we delve into the intricacies of the Self-Standing Givenness Ontology (SSGO), we find that causality is not a linear, one-way highway. Instead, it’s a dynamic, multidirectional freeway, an interplay between the diverse entities the world is, each contributing their unique essence to the unfolding meta-narrative of existence. This somewhat harmonious give-and-take is what we’ll explore in the following passages via the notion of causality.

Identifying the Players in the Relational Process

To grasp this concept, let’s begin with the quintessential examples as participants involved in a relational dynamic. These can range from conscious, sentient beings (like you and me) to inanimate entities (such as the materials we use to build our world like stone and tools). Each brings its distinct qualities to the table, engaging in a beautiful dance of mutual influence.

The Heart of Relational Participation: Mutual Self-Givenness

At the core of this dynamic lies the principle of mutual self-givenness. Here, each participant actively offers aspects of itself to the relationship, whether through intentional actions, inherent properties, or unspoken intentions. This self-giving is not a passive surrender; rather, it’s an engaged, reciprocal process where all parties shape and are shaped by the interaction.

Co-Actualization: The Emergence of Identity and Potential

Through this relational participation, entities co-actualize, realizing their identities and potentialities in tandem with others. This co-creative process allows beings to become more fully themselves, not in isolation, but through the enriching influence of mutual engagement. Consider a sculptor working with marble: the sculptor brings their vision, skill, and creativity, while the marble offers its texture, shape, and inherent properties. The sculpture that emerges is not simply the result of the sculptor imposing form on passive material; instead, the marble’s natural qualities actively participate in shaping the final outcome. Both the sculptor and the marble are transformed through this process, as the act of creating the sculpture reveals something about the identity of both—the sculptor as an artist and the marble as a unique medium.

Similarly, in a deep theological discussion between two people on the concepts of freedom and determinism, co-actualization is evident. Both participants bring their perspectives, experiences, and intellectual frameworks to the table. As they engage with each other’s ideas, challenging and expanding on one another’s views, something new is created—not only a deeper understanding of the topic but also a refined sense of each individual’s theological identity. Each participant influences the other, offering insights and counterpoints that shape their understanding, and in the process, their own ideas are shaped in return. This dynamic is not just an exchange of information but a relational co-actualization, where both individuals become more fully themselves as theologians and thinkers, enriched by the interaction. Through their mutual self-givenness, they engage in a dance of intellectual and spiritual growth that could not happen in isolation. Their engagement makes space for new possibilities of thought, forming a theological synthesis that exceeds what either could achieve alone.

Exocentric Givenness: The Outward Reach of Self

Central to this process is exocentric givenness, where participants extend beyond their boundaries, offering themselves to the greater relational dynamic. This self-giving is not confined; it’s an open, generous act that enables new possibilities and outcomes to emerge.

On the one hand, the sculptor, in their act of exocentric givenness, goes beyond merely imposing a form on the marble. The sculptor gives something deeply personal—creativity, vision, and intent—while the marble, in its own way, offers its unique essence, such as texture, weight, and resilience. The marble is not simply a passive recipient of form but actively contributes through the inherent qualities it “gives” to the artistic process. The resulting artwork is not a simple product of an external force acting upon inert material but is the co-actualization of both the sculptor’s vision and the marble’s properties. This act of relational engagement creates something new—a sculpture that embodies both the personal imprint of the sculptor and the natural beauty of the marble, neither of which could exist independently in the same way.

On the other hand, in the theological dialogue between two individuals, exocentric givenness takes the form of each participant moving beyond their internalized assumptions and offering their thoughts, insights, and intellectual commitments into the discussion. The dialogue is not a matter of merely imposing one’s view on the other but a mutual extension where each person’s understanding reaches beyond itself. As they share their perspectives on freedom and determinism, they give of their intellectual and spiritual resources, while receiving the other’s insights in return. Through this exchange, the participants are co-actualized—their ideas and identities as theologians are enriched and transformed through the dialogue. The theological synthesis that emerges is a relational creation, something that transcends their initial positions and reflects the depth of their mutual engagement. In this process, exocentric givenness is the outward movement of thought and spirit that enables a deeper understanding of both the theological concepts and each other.

In both examples, SSGO’s theory of causality allows for a dialectical spectrum of ideas to emerge. In the case of the sculptor and the marble, causality is not a one-sided imposition of form but a mutual self-givenness that respects the agency and properties of both participants. Similarly, in the theological dialogue, causality is not just the transmission of ideas from one mind to another but a dynamic interaction where new thoughts and understandings are co-actualized through relational engagement. This spectrum of causality ranges from the physical interaction between entities, like the sculptor and marble, to the intellectual and spiritual interaction between individuals, as seen in theological discourse.

In both instances, SSGO’s view of causality provides a relational framework where the essence of each participant is not only preserved but enriched and actualized through exocentric self-givenness, allowing for new realities and possibilities to emerge.

Relational Fulfillment: Purpose Emerging from the Network

As these interactions unfold, a sense of relational fulfillment begins to take shape. This fulfillment is not imposed from without but arises organically from the relational dynamic itself. Participants discover their purpose and identity through their contributions to the larger network. In our examples, each participant—whether it’s the sculptor and the marble, or the two theologians engaged in dialogue—offers their unique qualities and experiences, and through this mutual exchange, they contribute harmoniously to create a vibrant whole.

In the case of the sculptor and the marble, the relational fulfillment emerges as the final artwork, an expression of both the sculptor’s artistic vision and the marble’s natural properties. The sculpture is a relationally co-created entity that could not have come into being without the mutual participation and self-givenness of both the sculptor and the material. Their fulfillment is realized in the artwork itself, which stands as a testament to the relational process that gave it form.

Similarly, in the theological dialogue, the relational fulfillment manifests in the deeper understanding that each participant achieves. As they engage in exocentric givenness, their ideas evolve and expand, leading to a theological synthesis that neither could have reached alone. The fulfillment here is not just in the resolution of a theological debate, but in the formation of a communal understanding that reflects the depth of their mutual self-givenness.

In causal relations where means of grace are involved, we also sense a higher form of communion in causal interactions. For example, in the sacramental life of the Church, the relational fulfillment between God and participants is mediated through grace, where both God’s self-givenness and the participants’ receptivity lead to a deeper communion. This sacramental communion is not just a momentary interaction but points to a deeper eschatological fulfillment, where the purpose of relational engagement is ultimately realized in the eternal communion with God. The means of grace, such as in the Eucharist, reflect both the present purpose of deepening one’s relationship with God and the eschatological purpose of participating fully in the divine life. In this sense, communion in the SSGO framework is both a present reality and a future promise—where the relational matrix of existence is oriented toward the ultimate fulfillment in God’s eternal self-givenness.

Thus, SSGO’s theory of causality points toward a broader understanding of relational fulfillment as the purpose that emerges naturally from the network of relations. Whether in creative arts, intellectual dialogue, or spiritual practices, purpose is not a predefined external goal but is realized in and through the mutual co-actualization of all participants. This dynamic of relational fulfillment, grounded in exocentric givenness, ultimately leads to a deeper communion—both in the present relational engagements and in the eschatological fullness of communion with God. Through this, the relational matrix of causality fosters growth, identity, purpose, and communion for all involved, bringing the present purpose and eschatological horizon into a harmonious whole.

The teleological aspect of the Self-Standing Givenness Ontology (SSGO) sees purpose as something that emerges naturally from the relational dynamics of all beings. Rather than having a goal imposed from the outside, the purpose of each entity or process arises through its interaction with others. This emergence of purpose is grounded in mutual self-givenness, where each participant contributes its unique properties or actions into the larger relational matrix. As a result, the purpose of the interaction is discovered through the dynamic engagement of all participants, not from a predefined external objective.

This teleology is ordered and structured, meaning that the nature of each participant shapes how the final outcome unfolds. The marble in a sculpture or the participants in a theological dialogue are examples of this. The purpose of these processes is not random or ambiguous but follows an intelligible order. Each being’s engagement helps bring forth a meaningful, coherent outcome where the purpose is found in the relational fulfillment of all involved. In this sense, fulfillment comes not just from individual achievement, but from the collective realization of purpose through relational engagement.

In SSGO, teleology also has an eschatological dimension. The present relational processes point toward an ultimate fulfillment, which is eternal communion with God. The purpose found in present interactions is deeply connected to this final goal, where relational fulfillment in time is a foretaste of perfect, divine communion. This intertwining of present purpose and future fulfillment creates a holistic teleology, where each relational dynamic is both an end in itself and a step toward the ultimate goal of eternal relational fulfillment with God.

The Role of the Inanimate: Ontological Receptivity and Material Participation

Not all participants engage actively, however. Inanimate objects, like materials, contribute passively yet meaningfully by offering their inherent properties. Our marble, for instance, lends its malleability to the artisan’s hands, becoming an integral part of the creative process despite lacking conscious intention. This material participation is a vital aspect of the relational network, acknowledging the significant role non-sentient entities play in shaping our world. The sculptor could not produce the artwork without the marble’s inherent qualities. The stone’s passive participation does not reduce its contribution but highlights the important aspect of ontological receptivity in which materials give of themselves according to their nature. This passive form of relational engagement, although distinct from conscious self-givenness, is crucial in the co-actualization process.

Scaling the Depths of Participation

Each participant engages according to its nature and capacity, whether consciously and actively or through the passive offering of properties. Both forms of participation are valued and necessary, contributing to the co-created outcome. The marble offers its inherent qualities, while the sculptor contributes their creative vision. This principle extends beyond the sculptor example to broader relational dynamics—whether in theological dialogue, creative processes, or sacramental life, all participants engage at a level appropriate to their being, contributing meaningfully to the final purpose.

Rethinking Causality: From Linear to Relational

In the SSGO framework, causality is not a one-entity-imposes-its-will-upon-another scenario. Instead, it’s a dynamic, mutual engagement where all participants co-actualize, giving of themselves and transforming in the process. The outcome is not predetermined but emerges organically from the interplay of all involved.

Traditional Four Causes (Aristotle) vs. Relational Causality (SSGO)

In the traditional Aristotelian view, causes are distinct and external; one thing acts upon another, bringing about change. In SSGO, causality is not external or imposed but relationally co-actualized. Rather than viewing material as passive and acted upon, the SSGO sees material as a relational participant that actively contributes through its inherent properties, shaping the outcome alongside the other participants. This shift from linear, external causality to mutual, relational causality reflects the SSGO’s broader framework of relational existence, where beings engage in dynamic, co-creative processes that generate reality through self-givenness.

It’s Aristotle’s Revenge Really…

SSGO’s causal theory is obviously not as reductionistic as Aristotle’s framework. Part of it is he’s just a genius and was able to hide his errors in brilliant pragmatism. On the other hand, the SSGO can certainly achieve a structured, pragmatic framework levels to an extent to help people understand what’s going on in causal relations in a deeper way (with some simplicity from reductionism thrown in). Aristotle’s causes offer a clear, step-by-step framework (material, formal, efficient, and final), SSGO’s causality emphasizes mutual participation, co-actualization, and relational fulfillment. These concepts might initially seem more abstract, but they can be distilled into a similar formatting by identifying the core elements of relational engagement, self-givenness, co-actualization, and emergent purpose.

To make it more graspable, SSGO’s framework could be presented in parallel to Aristotle’s, with a focus on its own distinct relational modes. For instance:

1.  Relational Participation (akin to material cause) – each participant offers their properties, whether conscious or not.
2.  Mutual Self-Givenness (akin to efficient cause) – all entities shape and are shaped by their relational interactions.
3.  Co-Actualization (akin to formal cause) – identity and potential are realized together in the process.
4.  Relational Fulfillment (akin to final cause) – purpose and outcome emerge naturally from the engagement.

This is a scaffold however, and shouldn’t be taken as the framework…

Condensing SSGO’s nuanced, relational model into a structured framework like Aristotle’s comes with some major trade-offs. Doing it like this we definitely oversimplify the dynamic and fluid nature of relational interactions that are central to SSGO, and more importantly to God’s green earth. The deeper complexity of mutual influence, co-actualization, and emergent purpose is not fully captured in such a linear format.

SSGO’s strength lies in its emphasis on the ongoing, non-hierarchical participation of all entities, where the outcome is not predetermined but arises through the relational process itself. SSGO gives way to God’s freedom not Aristotle’s control. In Aristotle’s framework, each cause operates somewhat independently to bring about an effect, but in SSGO, the causes are more interconnected, continuously influencing and being influenced by each other. This relational matrix allows for a richer account of how things come to be, but it might not fit as neatly into a fixed, four-part schema without losing some of its nuance.

But, as I just demonstrated, it is-technically-possible to balance structure and depth as ling as we emphasize emphatically that the framework is not meant to be rigid but flexible—reflecting the continuous unfolding of relations. Framing SSGO too closely to Aristotle’s model obscures the non-linear, participatory essence that makes SSGO distinctive. The key would be to keep relational dynamics central, so the depth and nuance are not lost but presented in a way that remains accessible. Aristotle’s revenge is always a bit tepid, and more like a Narnian doorway for the student to stay relationally connected to the past. The serious student can do the extra exploration into ontology’s closet to think through the world and its questions.

Purpose as Emergent: The Relational Network as Source

Purpose, in this context, is not an externally imposed goal. It arises naturally from the relational network itself, as participants engage, influence, and are influenced by one another. The child-parent relationship, for instance, finds its purpose in the ongoing, mutual care and engagement of all family members, not in some predefined external objective. However, unlike more ambiguous uses of the term in other theories, where emergence might simply imply something inexplicable or spontaneous, SSGO’s concept of emergence is grounded in ordered relational participation.

Emergence in SSGO is not random or uncontrolled; rather, it follows a structured, ordered sequence of relational interactions, where each participant, whether active or passive, contributes to the co-actualization of the whole. The emergent reality or outcome is shaped by several principles:

1.  Mutual Self-Givenness: Emergence depends on how each participant gives of itself, whether through conscious intention (as in human action) or through ontological receptivity (as in material participation). This reciprocal giving and receiving ensures that what emerges is a product of the interplay between all involved, rather than a unilateral imposition.
2.  Co-Actualization: Participants in the relational dynamic are not merely influenced by others but actively realize their own potential and identity through engagement. This means that emergence in SSGO is not just about a final product but also about how the participants themselves evolve and are transformed in the process.
3.  Exocentric Givenness: Participants reach beyond their own bounds, contributing to something greater than themselves. In this sense, emergence is the outward result of the interior relational dynamic, where each entity offers something unique to the larger matrix.
4.  Relational Order: The emergence of new realities or outcomes follows an intelligible relational order. This order reflects the specific nature and roles of each participant, ensuring that what emerges is coherent, structured, and purposeful. It avoids the ambiguity often associated with emergence by emphasizing that the process is guided by the intrinsic nature of each participant and their contribution to the whole.
5.  Purpose and Fulfillment: In SSGO, emergence is closely tied to relational fulfillment. The purpose of the relational dynamic is not external or imposed but arises from the process itself. As entities co-actualize, their purpose and fulfillment are realized in the emergent reality. This ensures that emergence is not arbitrary but teleologically oriented, contributing to the ultimate purpose of the participants involved.

Example of Emergence in SSGO: Consider again the sculptor and the marble. As the sculptor engages with the marble, a sculpture emerges from their interaction. But this emergence is not simply a mechanical result of the sculptor imposing form on the material. Instead, the sculpture is a product of the mutual self-givenness of the sculptor and the marble. The marble offers its properties—its texture, hardness, and shape—while the sculptor gives their vision, skill, and creativity. Through their co-actualization, the sculpture comes into being, embodying the emergent synthesis of both the sculptor’s intention and the marble’s material properties. This emergence is structured by the order of their engagement, the nature of the materials, and the purpose that unfolds through their interaction.

Thus, in SSGO, emergence is understood as the ordered, relational unfolding of new realities, rooted in the dynamic participation and co-actualization of all involved, moving toward the fulfillment of their collective purpose.

In Conclusion: The Interconnected Heart of Causality

The SSGO’s causal theory illuminates the relational, participatory, and co-actualizing essence of causality. Each entity, whether actively engaged or passively contributing, plays a vital role in the process. Through mutual self-givenness and exocentric givenness, beings co-create, shape, and transform one another, leading to relational fulfillment. Purpose emerges—but since it’s relationally principled—is also naturally and coherently from within this dynamic process, guided by the relational interactions themselves, rather than being imposed from external dictates, with the ultimate fulfillment of this purpose pointing toward the eschatological goal of perfect communion with God.

Key Concepts:

1. Relational Participation: The engagement of diverse entities in a dynamic interplay.
2. Co-Actualization: The realization of identity and potential through mutual engagement.
3. Mutual Self-Givenness: The reciprocal offering of aspects of oneself to the relationship.
4. Exocentric Givenness: The outward-directed, generous act of self-giving.
5. Relational Fulfillment: The organic emergence of purpose from the relational dynamic.
6. Ontological Receptivity: The meaningful contribution of inanimate entities through their properties.
7. Scale of Participation: The valued engagement of entities according to their nature and capacity.
8. Material Participation: The role of non-sentient entities in shaping outcomes.
9. Mutual Engagement: The dynamic interplay of all participants in the causal process.
10. Purpose: The emergent outcome of relational engagement, not an external imposition.

see my glossary of terms for more depth: https://robertdryer.com/god-as-relatio-subsistens-a-glossary-of-terms/

AI developed TLDR:

In the Self-Standing Givenness Ontology, causality operates through ordered participation, where active participants (like humans or conscious agents) and passive participants (such as inanimate objects or materials) each contribute according to their nature. This contribution is not random but follows ordered relations, meaning the interactions are structured in a way that allows each participant to influence and be influenced by the others. The equation Ordered Participation + Ordered Relation = Identity Formation captures this process: as entities engage in mutual self-givenness through structured relational dynamics, they co-actualize their identities. This means that their identities are not fully formed in isolation but are realized and shaped within the relational network of participation and interaction, leading to a coherent and emergent identity.