Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 7 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation | Flusser | I 13 Interpretation/FlusserVsMoles, FlusserVsLuhmann: if we take interpretation instead of explanation: In this case, human communication is not recognized as an improbable process but as intention. >Communication/Flusser, >Information, >Explanation, >Interpretation, >Probability. |
Fl I V. Flusser Kommunikologie Mannheim 1996 |
| Modernism | Luhmann | Habermas IV 420 Modernism/LuhmannVsParsons/Luhmann/Habermas: Luhmann only emphasizes the traits of complexity in modern societies. These owe their high complexity to the strong differentiation of subsystems, which are relatively independent of each other and at the same time form environments for each other and interact with each other via media in such a regulated exchange that zones of mutual penetration (interpenetration) arise. Neo-Kantianism/Luhmann/Habermas: Luhmann clears up with Neo-Kantianism, i.e. he abandons the idea of realizing values Habermas IV 421 and sweeps the skies clean of cultural values. He gives the theory of modernity greater flexibility back by undoing the corset of the scheme of four functions (see AGIL scheme). LuhmannVsParsons: Luhmann wants to explain historically what Parsons still predicts theoretically, e.g. that the development of modern societies is characterized by exactly three revolutions. ParsonsVsLuhmann/Habermas: in contrast to Luhmann, Parsons can translate the increase in system complexity recorded from outside, from the observation into the self-image of the system members bound to the inner perspective of the lifeworld.(1) 1.T.Parsons, The System of Modern Societies, Englewood Cliffs 1971, S. 114ff. |
AU I N. Luhmann Introduction to Systems Theory, Lectures Universität Bielefeld 1991/1992 German Edition: Einführung in die Systemtheorie Heidelberg 1992 Lu I N. Luhmann Die Kunst der Gesellschaft Frankfurt 1997 Ha I J. Habermas Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988 Ha III Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. I Frankfurt/M. 1981 Ha IV Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. II Frankfurt/M. 1981 |
| Modernism | Parsons | Habermas IV 303 Modernism/Parsons/HabermasVsParsons/Habermas: Parson's theory of modernism is too harmonistic because it does not have the means for a plausible explanation of pathological development patterns. Habermas IV 420 Modernism/Parsons/HabermasVsParsons/Habermas: Parsons' theory of modernity has a Janus face: A) it differs from a system functionalism that exclusively emphasizes the traits of complexity in modern societies. That's Luhmann's line. >Modernism/Luhmann. Habermas IV 421 Method/ParsonsVsLuhmann/Habermas: Parsons understands social modernization not only as systemic rationalization, but as action-related rationalization. Habermas IV 422 HabermasVsParsons: Problem: Parsons lacks a social concept designed from an action perspective. Therefore, he cannot describe the rationalization of the lifeworld and the increase in the complexity of action systems as separate, interacting, but often also contradictory processes. Therefore, he cannot grasp the corresponding dialectic and must reduce these phenomena to the degree of crisis symptoms that can be explained according to the pattern of inflation and deflation. >Revolutions/Parsons. Habermas IV 432 Modernism/Parsons/ParsonsVsWeber/Habermas: Parsons does not arrive at a different view than Weber through a divergent description of global trends, about which one could argue; rather, this view is deductively derived from his analysis of the modernization process: "When developed modern societies are characterized by a high degree of inherent complexity, and when they have this complexity only in all four dimensions of adaptation capacity. If we can simultaneously increase the differentiation of media-controlled subsystems, inclusion and value generation, then there is an analytical relationship between a) the high complexity of the system and b) universalistic forms of social integration and informal institutionalized individualism. Habermas: Parsons therefore draws a harmonized picture of modernity. >Bureaucracy/Parsons. Habermas IV 433 Modernism/Parsons/HabermasVsParsons/Habermas: Parsons must reduce sociopathological phenomena to systemic imbalances; then the specific of social crises is lost. For self-regulated systems, which must permanently secure their risky existence by adapting to conditions of a contingent and over-complex environment, Habermas IV 434 internal imbalances are the normal state. |
ParCh I Ch. Parsons Philosophy of Mathematics in the Twentieth Century: Selected Essays Cambridge 2014 ParTa I T. Parsons The Structure of Social Action, Vol. 1 1967 ParTe I Ter. Parsons Indeterminate Identity: Metaphysics and Semantics 2000 Ha I J. Habermas Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988 Ha III Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. I Frankfurt/M. 1981 Ha IV Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. II Frankfurt/M. 1981 |
| Organisation | Habermas | IV 455 Organisation/Habermas: Organisations gain autonomy through a neutralising demarcation against the symbolic structures of the lifeworld. This makes them peculiarly indifferent to culture, society and personality. Luhmann describes these effects as "dehumanization of society". Overall, the social reality seems to shrink to an objective organisational reality released from normative ties. >Organization/Luhmann, >Systerms/Luhmann, >Institutions, >Objectivity, >Culture, >Society, >Personality, >N. Luhmann. IV 455/456 Dehumanization/HabermasVsLuhmann: means, however, only a separation of action areas from the lifeworld, no depersonalization in the sense of the separation of organized action systems from personality structures. >Systems, >Systems theory. Indifference/Habermas: in contrast to the traditional family business, the capitalist business shows an indifference to the private living conditions of all employees. These have become an environment for him. >Capitalism/Habermas. IV 457 Similarly, other organizations behave independently of legitimizing worldviews and cultural traditions in general. Members are stripped of their personality structure as persons and neutralized to high performers. >Legitimacy/Habermas. Cultural traditions are deprived of their obligatory power as ideologies, and transformed into raw materials for (...) an administrative treatment of contexts of meaning. Organisations/Habermas: must be able to cover their own legitimation needs. Lifeworld: Organization also makes itself independent of lifeworld contexts by neutralizing the normative background of informally accustomed, morally regulated action contexts. >Lifeworld/Habermas. IV 460 Communication/Organisation/Habermas: although not all communication processes are banned from within organisations, because the field of interaction of legal organisations is morally neutralised, communicative action within organisations loses its basis of validity. Members act communicatively with reservations. They are not forced to reach consensus by communicative means. >Communicative action/Habermas, >Communication theory/Habermas, >Communication/Habermas, >Communicative practice/Habermas, >Communicative rationality/Habermas, >Validity claims. |
Ha I J. Habermas Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988 Ha III Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. I Frankfurt/M. 1981 Ha IV Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. II Frankfurt/M. 1981 |
| Sense | Luhmann | Baraldi I 170 Sense/Luhmann/GLU: sense allows the selective production of all social and psychological forms. - The form of sense is the distinction "real"/"possible". Sense is the simultaneous presentation of news and possible. - Sense determines connectivity to additional communication. ((s) Elsewhere: is the dimension that is presented in the negation.) >Communication/Luhmann, >Understanding/Luhmann, >Meaning. Material dimension: "this"/"other" - social dimension: "ego"/"old" - time dimension: past/future. --- Reese-Schäfer II 34 Sense/Luhmann/Reese-Schäfer: the normal form of human experience. - The experience needs to select - for this serves the sense. Experience/action: is selection by sense criteria. >Action/Luhmann, >Experience/Maturana. Reese-Schäfer II 35 Definition sense/Luhmann: the meaning that has something for an observer - Futility: only possible with characters. Reese-Schäfer II 44 Sense/Luhmann/Reese-Schäfer: does not need a carrier - sense carries itself by allowing its own reproduction self-referential. Reese-Schäfer II 139 Sense/Luhmann/Reese-Schäfer: preverbal, language foundational category. >Language/Luhmann. Sense/HabermasVsLuhmann: principle linguistical - inconceivable without intersubjective validity. LuhmannVsHabermas: studies on marriage conflicts show that these cannot be solved with everyday language, because the everyday language holds both positive and negative expressions. --- AU Cass. 10 Sense/Sociology/Luhmann: Problem: if each individual produces sense, is there then a sphere of intersubjectivity? - Solution: we have to apply the sense category on two different system categories: 1. Mental systems, awareness systems that experience meaningfully. 2. Communication systems that reproduce sense in that it is used in communication. Subject: lost. - The subject is not a carrier of meaning. - Sense gets formal. - Solution: extraction through the distinction between medium and form - that means, independent of a particular system. AU Cass 10 Sense/Luhmann sense could be a constant invitation to a specific shape formation, which then is always characterized by the fact that they are formed in the medium by sense. - But these forms do not represent sense as a category at all. - The word "sense" is namely not the only thing what makes sense. AU Cass 10 Sense/Luhmann: a) in the system of consciousness - E.g. references to other options: I have the key in the pocket to unlock the door later - but sense is also the location of that reference in everything we consider as an object - b) in the communication system : to information also belongs the failure area: what surprises me? - All items have only sense in the context of other options. AU Cass 10 Sense is itself a medium - also negation takes place internally. - But sense itself is not negated. - We cannot get out. - A world in which only beetles exist would be one in which no more sense is processed - but we can imagine it only meaningfully. - We imagine the rest as rest - ( "as it would be for the human"). - ((s) Cf. Th. Nagel, What is it like to be a bat?). Animal/Luhmann: it is impossible to distinguish whether there is sense for animals. We depend on the assumption of sense. >Cf. >Animal, >Animal language. No distinction of meaning such as "factual"/"temporal"/"social" are possible. AU Cass. 10 Sense/Luhmann: no sense-needing system can be completely transparent to itself. - That, what we are as a result of a long chain of operations, which structures we have, we cannot reduce this to a formula. But instead we can imagine who we are, or we can describe it. - We also encounter quickly meaningless - that means, something that does not fit into this description. >Senseless, >Meaningless. |
AU I N. Luhmann Introduction to Systems Theory, Lectures Universität Bielefeld 1991/1992 German Edition: Einführung in die Systemtheorie Heidelberg 1992 Lu I N. Luhmann Die Kunst der Gesellschaft Frankfurt 1997 Baraldi I C. Baraldi, G.Corsi. E. Esposito GLU: Glossar zu Luhmanns Theorie sozialer Systeme Frankfurt 1997 Reese-Schäfer II Walter Reese-Schäfer Luhmann zur Einführung Hamburg 2001 |
| Systems | Luhmann | Baraldi I 195 System/Environment/Luhmann/GLU/(s): System is the basic concept of system theory. Outside: is always more complex than the inside. >Outside/inside/Luhmann. System: helps to reduce complexity. No system can operate outside its borders. Each system is identified by its own operation. >Operation/Luhmann. Environment: is not surrounded by borders but by horizons. It itself is not a system. It has no own operations. But it is not passive. >Environment/Talcott Parsons. --- Reese-Schäfer II 47 System/Luhmann/Reese-Schäfer: autopoietic systems have no other form of environmental contact than self contact. >Autopoiesis. Take only environmental impacts by transforming them into their own frequency. - E.g. social system has no use for consciousness. --- AU Cass 3 System/closed systems/Luhmann: closed systems cannot be found in the world. - We only consider open systems: biology, social system etc. - So-called operational (closed) systems are only seemingly different. --- AU Cass 4 System/Luhmann: a system can distinguish itself from the environment. --- AU Cass 8 System/environment/complexity/Luhmann: the environment of a system is always more complex than the system. Therefore, the system cannot establish a point-to-point relationship with the environment. - Therefore complexity must be reduced or ignored . For example, call different things by the same name. >Complexity/Luhmann. --- AU Cass 8 System/Luhmann: a system has subdivisions - E.g. planning for the system. - Dor the subdividions, the system is environment itself. Loosely coupled systems are more stable. - E.g. employees can be exchanged. >Form/Luhmann. Fixed coupling is not found in nature. - In systems not everything is connected with everything! - Not like Newton. --- AU Cass 11 System/Luhmann: a system is not an object but a difference. I am in my environment. I am not in society, otherwise others would think my thoughts, etc. Individuals/Systems theory: In this way, system theory allows individualism. HabermasVsLuhmann: radical individualism is not sought. LuhmannVsHabermas: the society does not have to strive for a "human aim". - ((s) This is an aim for humans, society is not a human.) --- AU Cass 14 System/Luhmann: E.g. conflicts are systems. - Because it brings the other in a limited range of variation of responses. Conflicts have an organizing force. VsSystemtheory/VsLuhmann: critiques say, here conflicts are underexposed. LuhmannVsVs: not here. Conflict: can lead to a too strong integration. Conflicts are spreading more with a fixed coupling. >Form/Luhmann. |
AU I N. Luhmann Introduction to Systems Theory, Lectures Universität Bielefeld 1991/1992 German Edition: Einführung in die Systemtheorie Heidelberg 1992 Lu I N. Luhmann Die Kunst der Gesellschaft Frankfurt 1997 Baraldi I C. Baraldi, G.Corsi. E. Esposito GLU: Glossar zu Luhmanns Theorie sozialer Systeme Frankfurt 1997 Reese-Schäfer II Walter Reese-Schäfer Luhmann zur Einführung Hamburg 2001 |
| Systems | Parsons | Habermas IV 229 System/Talcott Parsons/Habermas: the mature Parsons reinterprets the structural components of the lifeworld, i.e. culture, society and personality, into systems of action that form environments for each other. Parsons easily subsumes the concept of the lifeworld under system-theoretical terms, although it has a completely different origin. >Systems theory, >Culture, >Society, >Personality. Lifeworld/Parsons: He defines the physical substrate of the lifeworld under the term "behavioral system". HabermasVsParsons, Talcott: I would like to take into account the methodological difference between internal and external considerations. Habermas IV 338 Systems/Parsons/Habermas: after Parson understood early systems simply as ordered sets of elements, he later sees them from the point of view of conservation and demarcation against an over-complex environment.(1) Cf. >Systems/Luhmann. Habermas IV 339 (Cultural anthropological) structural functionalism is now being replaced by (biocybernetic) system functionalism. Then the terms "function" and "structure" are no longer on the same level. Structures and processes form functional equivalents for each other.(2) Habermas IV 340 ParsonsVsLuhmann: the special position culture occupies in relation to empirical systems of action gives Parsons the possibility of introducing the Newkantian dualism between values and facts into system functionalism. This value-theoretical barrier separates his approach from that of Luhmann's. Habermas IV 341 Parsons distinguishes between the two tasks of preserving the integrity of the action system inwards and outwards: he treats the corresponding basic functions under the keywords "allocation" and "integration".(3) >Terminology/Parsons, Environment/Parsons. Habermas IV 352 Action/Luhmann: "The plot is a system due to its internal analytical structure".(4) 1. Talcott Parsons, Toward a General Theory of Action, NY 1951. S. 108. 2. Talcott Parsons, Some Problems of General Theory in Sociology, in: McKinney, Tiryakan, (1970), p. 27ff. 3. Talcott Parsons, The Social System, NY 1951, S 114ff. 4. N. Luhmann, T. Parsons: die Zukunft eines Theorieprogramms, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 9, 1980, S. 8 |
ParCh I Ch. Parsons Philosophy of Mathematics in the Twentieth Century: Selected Essays Cambridge 2014 ParTa I T. Parsons The Structure of Social Action, Vol. 1 1967 ParTe I Ter. Parsons Indeterminate Identity: Metaphysics and Semantics 2000 Ha I J. Habermas Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988 Ha III Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. I Frankfurt/M. 1981 Ha IV Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. II Frankfurt/M. 1981 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frege, G. | Luhmann Vs Frege, G. | AU Cass. 5 The system is autonomous and can not import operations from the environment. No thought of others can enter my head, if one takes it seriously as a thought. (FregeVsLuhmann: Thoughts are objective). Luhmann: E.g. when ink runs across the paper, the text is illegible, but it creates no new text! (Operationally closed). |
AU I N. Luhmann Introduction to Systems Theory, Lectures Universität Bielefeld 1991/1992 German Edition: Einführung in die Systemtheorie Heidelberg 1992 Lu I N. Luhmann Die Kunst der Gesellschaft Frankfurt 1997 |
| Habermas, J. | Luhmann Vs Habermas, J. | Reese-Schäfer II 109 Ethics/Habermas: Cognitive ethics, with the dimension right/wrong. LuhmannVs. Reese-Schäfer II 112 LuhmannVsHabermas: "political moralist" (in Luhmann's eyes sharp criticism.) Ethics should rather ask whether morality can be regarded as good without circumstance. It should not pursue morality itself, but perform translation in both directions. Reese-Schäfer II 140 LuhmannVsHabermas: studies on marital conflicts show that these conflicts cannot be solved colloquially, because the colloquial language provides positive and negative expressions. There is no law that communication leads to consensus. One should therefore understand and analyse discussions themselves as systems. Discussions in particular offer little chance of bringing in one's own subjectivity. The language symbols like God, reform, justice, love, truth, democracy etc. are moralized in the discussions. This limits the possibility of connecting. This means that those who use counterarguments must defend themselves. Reese-Schäfer II 141 LuhmannVsHabermas: there is no logical hierarchy of reasons. Therefore there is no hope for an end to the discussion. At some point it just stops. There must be social, not logical or semantic rules for its termination. Cass 8 VsHabermas: Problem: the term should actually be the same on both sides, because why do we speak of rationality when both are rationality? What is the common component? HabermasVsLuhmann: in Luhmann only the system has rationality but the system is not everything! LuhmannVsHabermas: but that applies also to Habermas' "communication rationality", because if one communicated, there are also still things, over which one did not communicate yet and humans, with whom one did not communicate yet and the conditions change faster than the readiness to communicate again. So the realm of the afterlife plays a role in every model. But the system rationality is better equipped to deal with it. For Habermas, by the way, this afterlife is not the lifeworld. Cass 11 System/Society/Individual/Luhmann: the system is not an object, but a difference (S/U). For example, for the body the consciousness operations belong to the environment! ((s) No border crossing). Luhmann: that is not so frightening at all: for example, I myself feel more comfortable in the "environment" of my society than I would feel "in the society", where others think my thoughts or cause my chemical reactions. LuhmannVsHabermas: systems theory therefore allows us to think of a radical individualism that would not be possible if we were to adopt the humanist standpoint of the human as part of society. HabermasVsLuhmann: radical individualism is not aspired to at all. Society/LuhmannVsHabermas: it would be a mistake to claim that society must run towards a "human goal"! LuhmannVsHabermas: Understanding is already contained in communication - otherwise one needs the receiver, a disciplining instance. If one leaves understanding in communication, one gets a theory relieved of norms and rationality demands. Cass 13 Communication: Tradition like Habermas: Searching for consensus. Luhmann: what do you do when the consensus is reached, then there is no more communication? Habermas: there are enough conflicts. Luhmann: what is then the demand for consensus supposed to do? Then we turn an impossibility into a norm! The result of communication must already be open! Why do we have the "No" in the language? |
N. Luhmann GLU C. Baraldi, G.Corsi. E. Esposito GLU: Glossar zu Luhmanns Theorie sozialer Systeme, Frankfurt 1997 II Walter Reese-Schäfer Luhmann zur Einführung, Junius,Hamburg 1992 Diew ZEIT 10/96 Zur Ästhetik Luhmanns AU Introduction to Systems Theory, Lectures Universität Bielefeld 1991/1992 German Edition: Einführung in die Systemtheorie Heidelberg 1992 Autobahn-Universität ISBN 3-927809-29-2 Reese-Schäfer II Walter Reese-Schäfer Luhmann zur Einführung Hamburg 2001 |
| Luhmann, N. | Flusser Vs Luhmann, N. | I 11 Flusser: Commucation theory is interpretive, not in the sense of information theory. I 13 Interpretation / FlusserVsMoles, FlusserVsLuhmann: instead explanation: then human communication is not recognized as improbable process but as intention. |
Fl I V. Flusser Kommunikologie Mannheim 1996 |
| Luhmann, N. | Habermas Vs Luhmann, N. | I 426 Luhmann stands less in the tradition of Comte to Parsons than in the problem history from Kant to Husserl. He inherits the basic concepts and problems of the philosophy of consciousness. HabermasVsLuhmann: He undertakes a change of perspective which makes the self-criticism of a modernity crumbling with itself obsolete. The system theory of society applied to itself cannot help responding affirmatively to the increasing complexity of modern societies. I 430 HabermasVsLuhmann: thought movements from metaphysics to metabiology! Departs from the "as such" of organic life, a basic phenomenon of self-assertion of self-referential systems facing an over-complex environment. I 431 Undefraudable: the difference to the environment. Self-preservation replaces reason. Reason/HabermasVsLuhmann: thus he also replaced the criticism of reason with system rationality: the ensemble of enabling conditions for system preservation. Reason shrinks to complexity reduction. It is not outbid like in the communicative reason. Reason once again becomes the superstructure of life. Meaning/System Theory: the functionalist concept of meaning dissolves the relationship between meaning and validity. (As in Foucault: when it comes to truth (and validity as such) we are only interested in the effects of the considering-as-true). I 434 HabermasVsLuhmann: no central perspective, no criticism of reason, no position anymore. HabermasVsLuhmann: but we lack a social subsystem for perceiving environmental interdependences. That cannot exist with functional differentiation, because that would mean that the society occurred again in society itself. I 435 Intersubjectivity/Luhmann: language-generated intersubjectivity is not available for Luhmann. Instead, inclusion model of the parts in the whole. He considers this figure of thought to be "humanist". And he distances himself from that! I 437 HabermasVsLuhmann: Contradiction: Social Systems: previously, persons or "consciousness carriers" have to be postulated which are capable of judgment before all participation in social systems. On the other hand, both system types (psycho/social) cannot stand on different steps of the ladder if they are to be distinguished as equally emergent achievements of sense processing against organic systems. So Luhmann speaks of co-evolution. I 438 HabermasVsLuhmann: suffers from the lack of appropriate basic concepts of linguistic theory: sense must be neutral with regard to consciousness and communication. - Language/HabermasVsLuhmann: a subordinate status is assigned to the linguistic expression against the phenomenologically introduced concept of sense. Language only serves the purpose of the symbolic generalization of previous sense events. I 441 LuhmannVsHumanism: "cardinal sin" amalgamation of social and material dimension. Luhmann II 136 Living Environment/Luhmann: Luhmann does not know a living environment! (HabermasVs). Thus, person, culture and society are no longer cramped. HabermasVsLuhmann: "unacknowledged commitment of the theory to rule-compliant issues", "the apology of the status quo for the sake of its preservation", and "uncritical submission of the theory of society under the constraints of the reproduction of society." "High form of a technocratic consciousness." II 141 HabermasVsLuhmann: contradiction: that systems have a kind of relief function, while at the same time, the environment of social systems is a more complex world. Lu II 137 - HabermasVsLuhmann: Vs Functionalization of the Concept of Truth. Even the system theory itself can make no special claim to the validity of its statements. It’s only one way of acting among others. Theory is action. This, in turn, can only be said if you ultimately assume a theoretical point of view outside of the practice. II 165 System Theory/HabermasVsLuhmann: its claim to universality encounters a limit at that point at which it would have to be more than mere observation, namely a scientifically based recommendation for action. AU Cass.12 HabermasVsLuh: (in correspondence): Luhmann did not consider linguistics! LuhmannVsHabermas: that is indeed the case! I do not use the terminology. E.g. the normative binding of actors. It would have to be re-introduced in some other way, but not in communication. |
Ha I J. Habermas Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988 Ha III Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. I Frankfurt/M. 1981 Ha IV Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. II Frankfurt/M. 1981 Lu I N. Luhmann Die Kunst der Gesellschaft Frankfurt 1997 |
| Luhmann, N. | Maturana Vs Luhmann, N. | MaturanaVsLuhmann: refuses to describe communication systems as social systems. LuhmannVsMaturana: that is a strong emotional element on his side: he does not want to lose sight of the people. (Cass.5) |
Maturana I Umberto Maturana Biologie der Realität Frankfurt 2000 |
| Luhmann, N. | Verschiedene Vs Luhmann, N. | II 48 System/closed/open: in system theory the comparison of closed and open systems is generally valid - with a certain preference for openness. Self-organisation/autopoiesis/openness: "Closedness of the self-referential mode of operation is rather a form of extension of possible environmental contact. VsLuhmann: here one could speak of two levels of description. Critics accuse Luhmann of blurriness here. II 119 SchäferVsLuhmann: morality has more to do with observance of norms than with respect, regardless of religious or other values. HabermasVsLuhmann: Vs Functionalization of the Concept of Truth. Even system theory itself cannot claim any particular validity for its statements. It is only one kind of action among others. Theory is action. But this can only be said again if one ultimately adopts a theoretical point of view outside of practice. II 142 SchäferVsLuhmann: this problem will be solved later by the not quite clean logically "re-entry". Kass.8 VsLuhmann: one always hears that this is terribly abstract. I did not want to deny abstractness either. VsLuhmann: his whole theory could never be proved empirically! VsLuhmann: it is logically inadmissible to handle paradoxes in this way. LuhmannVsVs: brings in the concept of "supervacuus": "superfluous" (actually "over-empty"). Question: if you cannot show with the terms how other things are connected and how not. If you start like this, then you cannot connect any more. The power of such a theory lies in inserting probes into an established theory to see if areas can be better covered. VsLuhmann: if you take the whole thing seriously, the system should also contain its own negation. Otherwise it is not perfectly autonomous. LuhmannVsVs: here I have to resort to my note box (with tens of thousands of notes): one note says that all other notes are wrong! Kass.11 Renate MeinsVsLuhmann: System Theory without action is like a lady without a lower abdomen. LuhmannVsMeins: in reality it is much worse, she has no body at all, it is not part of the social system. Meins: So what are you actually talking about? Luhmann: one only wants to dismiss the concept of action out of this gluing function between individual and society. AU Kass 5 Def Structures/Luhmann: are therefore expectations with regard to the connectivity of operations, be it of mere experience, be it of action and not in a sense that must be meant subjectively. VsLuhmann: a critique of this concept of expectation amounts to subjectivation. Subject/Object/System/Luhmann: for a theory that defines the structural concept of expectations, the subject/object distinction is insignificant at all. Johannes BergerVsLuhmann: expectation is subjective, and therefore useless for the more objective sociology. Luhmann: you will certainly also have experienced that one can statistically examine structures as objective facts. Without considering the thoughts of individual persons. Luhmann: but I try to get out of this System/Object distinction and replace it with the concept of the operation that a system actually performs when it performs it or the observation of this operation by the system or an external observer. Then expectation is no longer subjective, but it is only the question: how do structures reduce complexity? |
|
| System Theory | Esfeld Vs System Theory | I 22 Holismus/EsfeldVsSystemtheorie/EsfeldVsLuhmann: die Beziehungen, die die Systemtheorie untersucht, (wechselseitige, kausale, kreisförmige) bleiben in Bezug auf den Holismus unzureichend: Sie sind weder notwendig noch hinreichend dafür, daß das betreffende System holistisch ist. |
Es I M. Esfeld Holismus Frankfurt/M 2002 |
| |||