Aw: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
Stephen, Edwina, list, I think, spirituality answers "why"- questions with experience (firstness), and materialism (also the dogmatic, prophetic, nonspiritual part of religion) answers these "why"- questions with "because"- answers, which, as you (Stephen) wrote earlier, leads to groupthink. I guess this is so, because "because"- answers are a thirdness-shortcut, isolating the semiosis from fresh firstnesses (chance..), and from the secondness "hard effects" (Edwina). I am wondering if this continuum-polarity "spirituality-materialism" may be further fundamentalized. Proposals: - Open- versus narrow-mindedness, - (Additional) nondistinctive versus (merely) distinctive logic (at which point I again wonder whether there is a nondistinctive logic: Holism? Win-win-logic? Triadic thinking?), - Complexity reduction by forbidding paradoxons versus complexity reduction by allowing them, - ? (Your turn) Best, Helmut 09. Dezember 2018 um 10:36 Uhr "Stephen Jarosek" wrote: Edwina, Helmut Edwina’s succinct summary nicely sums up along the lines of what I was trying to say. But I’d like to emphasize a further perspective. Rather than thinking of groupthink as a phenomenon separate and distinct from culture, think of it as one end of a continuum. Groupthink is motivated primarily by self-interest and self-preservation. As such, its emphasis tends to personal needs and bodily predispositions. That is, groupthink tends to the animal in us. We recognize groupthink in other species, such as when I saw a flock of crows attack another crow that was singled out for some reason. We see rabid groupthink in meerkats… hugging one another in a tight, collective ball of adoring togetherness, but viciously singling one individual that did not belong for some reason (e.g., David Attenborough’s meerkat documentary). Some cultures tend to the groupthink end of the continuum more than others. These are the cultures obsessed with needs. You know, materialism, popularity, social approval, hedonism. The prioritization of these kinds of values tends to groupthink because, in the narrative of Buddhism, they compel the human agent to see the world from their own level, instead of the level of wider possibility. When you need social approval, for example, you cannot free yourself from the opinions of others. Materialism becomes increasingly important to you less for the purpose of meeting material needs than for the purpose of social approval… others will categorize you according to what you own. The most reliable method of ensuring social approval is to become like everyone else… thoughtless imitation prevails over pragmatic assimitation (knowing how to be). In this context, hedonism and “fun” are less liberties than they are constraints… if you’re not having fun, then there must be something wrong with you. Contemporary examples… the internet and social media… safe-spaces in American universities to shield politically sensitive students from being “triggered” by contrary opinions that upset them. The opposite end of the continuum, by contrast, defines the idealized purpose of religions… i.e., the spiritual. That’s the pragmatic purpose that Christianity served in the evolution of European civilization. sj From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2018 11:10 PM To: tabor...@primus.ca Cc: Stephen Jarosek; tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Aw: Re: RE: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis Edwina, list, I see. I think, there are two different meanings of "culture": First, culture as a value, in contrast to groupthink, and second, culture as a specification that distinguishes one culture from other cultures. The first meaning of culture includes what you wrote (firstness chance and secondness environment interactions), and so also the courageous individual Stephen wrote about. The second meaning (distinction) is the negative meaning I was using, and culture criticism is about. A culture that distinguishes itself from other cultures isolates itself from chance and environment, and comes close to groupthink. So culture is seemingly paradox, but for real just non-algebraic: It is the more valuable, the more it is not itself. It distinguishes itself the more from other cultures, the more it does not distinguish itself at all. So, is culture something to which neither commonsense distinction-think applies, neither Spencer-Brown, nor Peirces existential graphs? Is there a calculus for culture (like a set that does not include itself)? Best, Helmut 08. Dezember 2018 um 15:31 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: Helmut, list There IS a difference between 'groupthink' and 'culture' though a cursory glance will equate them. Both refer to habi
RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
Edwina, Helmut Edwinas succinct summary nicely sums up along the lines of what I was trying to say. But Id like to emphasize a further perspective. Rather than thinking of groupthink as a phenomenon separate and distinct from culture, think of it as one end of a continuum. Groupthink is motivated primarily by self-interest and self-preservation. As such, its emphasis tends to personal needs and bodily predispositions. That is, groupthink tends to the animal in us. We recognize groupthink in other species, such as when I saw a flock of crows attack another crow that was singled out for some reason. We see rabid groupthink in meerkats hugging one another in a tight, collective ball of adoring togetherness, but viciously singling one individual that did not belong for some reason (e.g., David Attenboroughs meerkat documentary <https://youtu.be/zGR0bAeP350?t=39> ). Some cultures tend to the groupthink end of the continuum more than others. These are the cultures obsessed with needs. You know, materialism, popularity, social approval, hedonism. The prioritization of these kinds of values tends to groupthink because, in the narrative of Buddhism, they compel the human agent to see the world from their own level, instead of the level of wider possibility. When you need social approval, for example, you cannot free yourself from the opinions of others. Materialism becomes increasingly important to you less for the purpose of meeting material needs than for the purpose of social approval others will categorize you according to what you own. The most reliable method of ensuring social approval is to become like everyone else thoughtless imitation prevails over pragmatic assimitation (knowing how to be). In this context, hedonism and fun are less liberties than they are constraints if youre not having fun, then there must be something wrong with you. Contemporary examples the internet and social media safe-spaces in American universities to shield politically sensitive students from being triggered by contrary opinions that upset them. The opposite end of the continuum, by contrast, defines the idealized purpose of religions i.e., the spiritual. Thats the pragmatic purpose that Christianity served in the evolution of European civilization. sj From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2018 11:10 PM To: tabor...@primus.ca Cc: Stephen Jarosek; tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Aw: Re: RE: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis Edwina, list, I see. I think, there are two different meanings of "culture": First, culture as a value, in contrast to groupthink, and second, culture as a specification that distinguishes one culture from other cultures. The first meaning of culture includes what you wrote (firstness chance and secondness environment interactions), and so also the courageous individual Stephen wrote about. The second meaning (distinction) is the negative meaning I was using, and culture criticism is about. A culture that distinguishes itself from other cultures isolates itself from chance and environment, and comes close to groupthink. So culture is seemingly paradox, but for real just non-algebraic: It is the more valuable, the more it is not itself. It distinguishes itself the more from other cultures, the more it does not distinguish itself at all. So, is culture something to which neither commonsense distinction-think applies, neither Spencer-Brown, nor Peirces existential graphs? Is there a calculus for culture (like a set that does not include itself)? Best, Helmut 08. Dezember 2018 um 15:31 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Helmut, list There IS a difference between 'groupthink' and 'culture' though a cursory glance will equate them. Both refer to habits of belief and behaviour, I.e., 3ns. The difference, I think, is that 'groupthink' has removed itself from interaction with both 1ns and 2ns and thus, is isolated from the effects of spontaneity/freedom and from pragmatic interaction with its local environment. Culture ought to be, as a robust semiosic 3ns, in touch with both the chance interactions of 1ns and the hard effects of the 2ns of its current environment. Edwina. On Sat 08/12/18 6:05 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Stephen, you earlier wrote, that knowing how to be is replication of behaviour, and a synthesis of assuming and imitating. I dont see the difference between that and NPCish groupthink: Replication of behaviour to me seems exactly what you wrote about groupthink: A degenerated firstness, just taking observed behaviour (former thirdness) for firstness again, without regarding other firstness influences. Association and habituation without something new that would mediate. Though (for culture, knowing how to be) a habit (replication of behaviour) may also be the habit of
Aw: Re: RE: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
Edwina, list, I see. I think, there are two different meanings of "culture": First, culture as a value, in contrast to groupthink, and second, culture as a specification that distinguishes one culture from other cultures. The first meaning of culture includes what you wrote (firstness chance and secondness environment interactions), and so also the courageous individual Stephen wrote about. The second meaning (distinction) is the negative meaning I was using, and culture criticism is about. A culture that distinguishes itself from other cultures isolates itself from chance and environment, and comes close to groupthink. So culture is seemingly paradox, but for real just non-algebraic: It is the more valuable, the more it is not itself. It distinguishes itself the more from other cultures, the more it does not distinguish itself at all. So, is culture something to which neither commonsense distinction-think applies, neither Spencer-Brown, nor Peirces existential graphs? Is there a calculus for culture (like a set that does not include itself)? Best, Helmut 08. Dezember 2018 um 15:31 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Helmut, list There IS a difference between 'groupthink' and 'culture' though a cursory glance will equate them. Both refer to habits of belief and behaviour, I.e., 3ns. The difference, I think, is that 'groupthink' has removed itself from interaction with both 1ns and 2ns and thus, is isolated from the effects of spontaneity/freedom and from pragmatic interaction with its local environment. Culture ought to be, as a robust semiosic 3ns, in touch with both the chance interactions of 1ns and the hard effects of the 2ns of its current environment. Edwina. On Sat 08/12/18 6:05 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Stephen, you earlier wrote, that knowing how to be is replication of behaviour, and a synthesis of assuming and imitating. I dont see the difference between that and NPCish groupthink: Replication of behaviour to me seems exactly what you wrote about groupthink: A degenerated firstness, just taking observed behaviour (former thirdness) for firstness again, without regarding other firstness influences. Association and habituation without something new that would mediate. Though (for culture, knowing how to be) a habit (replication of behaviour) may also be the habit of revising habits. But for me the root of this critical behaviour does not originate from culture, but from precultural references, like human nature, possible to be observed at any child from any culture (curiosity, inquiring "why"-questions...). Best, Helmut 08. Dezember 2018 um 07:54 Uhr "Stephen Jarosek" wrote: HELMUT >”groupthink is quite identical with culture” This is a category error. The characteristics that govern groupthink need to be distinguished from the principles that govern culture. Culture relates to pragmatism, knowing how to be, Heideggers Dasein. Groupthink describes something different. Some cultures are more predisposed to groupthink than others, and NO culture is exempt. My own humble estimation is that the problem of groupthink revolves around some kind of failure of firstness, in the mediation of secondness and thirdness. Reflexive and automaton-like behavior can take place with emphasis on secondness and thirdness (association and habituation) and the muting or degeneration of firstness, perhaps as a product of fear and the need to belong. Both the Left and the Right in politics are capable of groupthink. Paul Joseph Watson nails the groupthink of the left in his video on NPC-bots: https://youtu.be/M0aienuCBdg And we are all too familiar with the iconic groupthink of the right: https://www.gettyimages.ch/detail/nachrichtenfoto/jubilant-crowd-salutes-nazi-leader-adolf-hitler-nachrichtenfoto/81512242 sj From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 4:10 PM To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au Cc: tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Aw: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis Stephen, As I see it, groupthink is quite identical with culture. Noncultural references would be e.g. species-think (the ways all humans think, like wanting to take part, be noticed, be treated justly), organism-think-and reactions (e.g. the awarenesses and instincts of handling organism-specific problems like having to eat), and universal reactions like the constraints that the natural laws provide. Noncultural references have their roots in precontemporary-cultural ancient times, but of course are integrated into contemporary cultures. If some trait is the same in all existing cultures, it is likely, that this trait is a non-, meaning pre-cultural reference. E.g., that parents dont eat their children, Id say, is a mammal-trait, and also a bird-trait, not an animal-trait, as some animals eat some of their children, a
Re: Aw: RE: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
Helmut, list There IS a difference between 'groupthink' and 'culture' though a cursory glance will equate them. Both refer to habits of belief and behaviour, I.e., 3ns. The difference, I think, is that 'groupthink' has removed itself from interaction with both 1ns and 2ns and thus, is isolated from the effects of spontaneity/freedom and from pragmatic interaction with its local environment. Culture ought to be, as a robust semiosic 3ns, in touch with both the chance interactions of 1ns and the hard effects of the 2ns of its current environment. Edwina. On Sat 08/12/18 6:05 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Stephen, you earlier wrote, that knowing how to be is replication of behaviour, and a synthesis of assuming and imitating. I dont see the difference between that and NPCish groupthink: Replication of behaviour to me seems exactly what you wrote about groupthink: A degenerated firstness, just taking observed behaviour (former thirdness) for firstness again, without regarding other firstness influences. Association and habituation without something new that would mediate. Though (for culture, knowing how to be) a habit (replication of behaviour) may also be the habit of revising habits. But for me the root of this critical behaviour does not originate from culture, but from precultural references, like human nature, possible to be observed at any child from any culture (curiosity, inquiring "why"-questions...). Best, Helmut 08. Dezember 2018 um 07:54 Uhr "Stephen Jarosek" wrote: HELMUT >”groupthink is quite identical with culture” This is a category error. The characteristics that govern groupthink need to be distinguished from the principles that govern culture. Culture relates to pragmatism, knowing how to be, Heideggers Dasein. Groupthink describes something different. Some cultures are more predisposed to groupthink than others, and NO culture is exempt. My own humble estimation is that the problem of groupthink revolves around some kind of failure of firstness, in the mediation of secondness and thirdness. Reflexive and automaton-like behavior can take place with emphasis on secondness and thirdness (association and habituation) and the muting or degeneration of firstness, perhaps as a product of fear and the need to belong. Both the Left and the Right in politics are capable of groupthink. Paul Joseph Watson nails the groupthink of the left in his video on NPC-bots: https://youtu.be/M0aienuCBdg [1] And we are all too familiar with the iconic groupthink of the right: https://www.gettyimages.ch/detail/nachrichtenfoto/jubilant-crowd-salutes-nazi-leader-adolf-hitler-nachrichtenfoto/81512242 [2] sj From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de [3]] Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 4:10 PM To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au [4] Cc: tabor...@primus.ca [5]; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu [6] Subject: Aw: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis Stephen, As I see it, groupthink is quite identical with culture. Noncultural references would be e.g. species-think (the ways all humans think, like wanting to take part, be noticed, be treated justly), organism-think-and reactions (e.g. the awarenesses and instincts of handling organism-specific problems like having to eat), and universal reactions like the constraints that the natural laws provide. Noncultural references have their roots in precontemporary-cultural ancient times, but of course are integrated into contemporary cultures. If some trait is the same in all existing cultures, it is likely, that this trait is a non-, meaning pre-cultural reference. E.g., that parents dont eat their children, Id say, is a mammal-trait, and also a bird-trait, not an animal-trait, as some animals eat some of their children, as I vaguely recall. Problem solving of mimetic desire may be a universal value: The Pauli-principle. Values are means to solve problem-patterns, or to avoid their expressions. I think it is valuable to analyse values regarding from which time scale aka taxonomical node they origin. My suspicion is, that many values are being assigned to one or the other culture, but for real stem from much earlier, much more general origins. This is the point of my opposition against culturalism/ overestimation of culture. Intention is to help deescalate culture clashes. Best, Helmut 06. Dezember 2018 um 11:20 Uhr "Stephen Jarosek" HELMUT >”"This is the first day of the rest of my life", and can therefore rely on noncultural references, like humanism based on panhuman traits, universal logic (like Kant´s pure reason), or so. Therefore I am trying to emphasize these noncultural references. ” Are you allowing yourself to be swayed by universal logic’s illusion of objectivity? Today’s pure reason of “universal logic” relies on materi
Aw: RE: RE: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
Stephen, the way you put it, I completely agree. So what was it we were disagreeing about? Maybe only, how to define the term "culture"? The non-groupthink part of knowing how to be, is it "assuming"? It has two meanings: Does it mean to presume or to adopt, or both? I guess it is to presume, out of intuition too, e.g. the value of a role model. So I guess, the non-NPC-part of culture has a lot to do with intuition. Intuition is the faster way to know how to be, because with intuition one does not have to reinvent the wheel, as you wrote. But i think, it is always good to re-engineer the wheel, intuitional results, role models, and cultures. Anyway, our opinions are less apart than I was thinking. Only I think, that the leftist (except orthodox marxism), gender, and feminist movements are not completely NPC, but have some reasonable points as well. Best, Helmut 08. Dezember 2018 um 13:18 Uhr "Stephen Jarosek" wrote: HELMUT >”… knowing how to be is replication of behaviour, and a synthesis of assuming and imitating. I dont see the difference between that and NPCish groupthink” There is a difference. My reference to assimitating is in the context of knowing how to be, which revolves around the question “what is the correct way to be?” Groupthink revolves around the assertion “this is the correct way of being because my friends are doing the same thing.” Reality is very complex, and assimitation/imitation saves us the effort and expense of having to reinvent the wheel. Knowing how to be is the reason that role models are so important… which, as you suggest, revolves around curiosity and “why” questions, not the assertion of “because” answers – the latter characterizes groupthink. A behavior becomes groupthink when it is accepted unconditionally, without questioning it, just because everyone else is going along with it. Or, to put all this another way… you might choose Jesus as a role model if you are looking for a best answer to the question being, but you might choose a movie star for a role model if you have decided that popularity is the answer to the questioning of being. Both relate to assimitation/imitation and knowing how to be, but we can clearly distinguish the latter as groupthink, with its emphasis on personal need. Regards, sj From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2018 12:06 PM To: Stephen Jarosek Cc: tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Aw: RE: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis Stephen, you earlier wrote, that knowing how to be is replication of behaviour, and a synthesis of assuming and imitating. I dont see the difference between that and NPCish groupthink: Replication of behaviour to me seems exactly what you wrote about groupthink: A degenerated firstness, just taking observed behaviour (former thirdness) for firstness again, without regarding other firstness influences. Association and habituation without something new that would mediate. Though (for culture, knowing how to be) a habit (replication of behaviour) may also be the habit of revising habits. But for me the root of this critical behaviour does not originate from culture, but from precultural references, like human nature, possible to be observed at any child from any culture (curiosity, inquiring "why"-questions...). Best, Helmut 08. Dezember 2018 um 07:54 Uhr "Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote: HELMUT >”groupthink is quite identical with culture” This is a category error. The characteristics that govern groupthink need to be distinguished from the principles that govern culture. Culture relates to pragmatism, knowing how to be, Heideggers Dasein. Groupthink describes something different. Some cultures are more predisposed to groupthink than others, and NO culture is exempt. My own humble estimation is that the problem of groupthink revolves around some kind of failure of firstness, in the mediation of secondness and thirdness. Reflexive and automaton-like behavior can take place with emphasis on secondness and thirdness (association and habituation) and the muting or degeneration of firstness, perhaps as a product of fear and the need to belong. Both the Left and the Right in politics are capable of groupthink. Paul Joseph Watson nails the groupthink of the left in his video on NPC-bots: https://youtu.be/M0aienuCBdg And we are all too familiar with the iconic groupthink of the right: https://www.gettyimages.ch/detail/nachrichtenfoto/jubilant-crowd-salutes-nazi-leader-adolf-hitler-nachrichtenfoto/81512242 sj From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 4:10 PM To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au Cc: tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Aw: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and
RE: RE: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
HELMUT > knowing how to be is replication of behaviour, and a synthesis of assuming and imitating. I dont see the difference between that and NPCish groupthink There is a difference. My reference to assimitating is in the context of knowing how to be, which revolves around the question what is the correct way to be? Groupthink revolves around the assertion this is the correct way of being because my friends are doing the same thing. Reality is very complex, and assimitation/imitation saves us the effort and expense of having to reinvent the wheel. Knowing how to be is the reason that role models are so important which, as you suggest, revolves around curiosity and why questions, not the assertion of because answers the latter characterizes groupthink. A behavior becomes groupthink when it is accepted unconditionally, without questioning it, just because everyone else is going along with it. Or, to put all this another way you might choose Jesus as a role model if you are looking for a best answer to the question being, but you might choose a movie star for a role model if you have decided that popularity is the answer to the questioning of being. Both relate to assimitation/imitation and knowing how to be, but we can clearly distinguish the latter as groupthink, with its emphasis on personal need. Regards, sj From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2018 12:06 PM To: Stephen Jarosek Cc: tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Aw: RE: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis Stephen, you earlier wrote, that knowing how to be is replication of behaviour, and a synthesis of assuming and imitating. I dont see the difference between that and NPCish groupthink: Replication of behaviour to me seems exactly what you wrote about groupthink: A degenerated firstness, just taking observed behaviour (former thirdness) for firstness again, without regarding other firstness influences. Association and habituation without something new that would mediate. Though (for culture, knowing how to be) a habit (replication of behaviour) may also be the habit of revising habits. But for me the root of this critical behaviour does not originate from culture, but from precultural references, like human nature, possible to be observed at any child from any culture (curiosity, inquiring "why"-questions...). Best, Helmut 08. Dezember 2018 um 07:54 Uhr "Stephen Jarosek" wrote: HELMUT >groupthink is quite identical with culture This is a category error. The characteristics that govern groupthink need to be distinguished from the principles that govern culture. Culture relates to pragmatism, knowing how to be, Heideggers Dasein. Groupthink describes something different. Some cultures are more predisposed to groupthink than others, and NO culture is exempt. My own humble estimation is that the problem of groupthink revolves around some kind of failure of firstness, in the mediation of secondness and thirdness. Reflexive and automaton-like behavior can take place with emphasis on secondness and thirdness (association and habituation) and the muting or degeneration of firstness, perhaps as a product of fear and the need to belong. Both the Left and the Right in politics are capable of groupthink. Paul Joseph Watson nails the groupthink of the left in his video on NPC-bots: https://youtu.be/M0aienuCBdg And we are all too familiar with the iconic groupthink of the right: https://www.gettyimages.ch/detail/nachrichtenfoto/jubilant-crowd-salutes-naz i-leader-adolf-hitler-nachrichtenfoto/81512242 sj From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 4:10 PM To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au Cc: tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Aw: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis Stephen, As I see it, groupthink is quite identical with culture. Noncultural references would be e.g. species-think (the ways all humans think, like wanting to take part, be noticed, be treated justly), organism-think-and reactions (e.g. the awarenesses and instincts of handling organism-specific problems like having to eat), and universal reactions like the constraints that the natural laws provide. Noncultural references have their roots in precontemporary-cultural ancient times, but of course are integrated into contemporary cultures. If some trait is the same in all existing cultures, it is likely, that this trait is a non-, meaning pre-cultural reference. E.g., that parents dont eat their children, Id say, is a mammal-trait, and also a bird-trait, not an animal-trait, as some animals eat some of their children, as I vaguely recall. Problem solving of mimetic desire may be a universal value: The Pauli-principle. Values are means to solve problem-patterns, or to avoid their expressions. I think it is
Aw: RE: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
Stephen, you earlier wrote, that knowing how to be is replication of behaviour, and a synthesis of assuming and imitating. I dont see the difference between that and NPCish groupthink: Replication of behaviour to me seems exactly what you wrote about groupthink: A degenerated firstness, just taking observed behaviour (former thirdness) for firstness again, without regarding other firstness influences. Association and habituation without something new that would mediate. Though (for culture, knowing how to be) a habit (replication of behaviour) may also be the habit of revising habits. But for me the root of this critical behaviour does not originate from culture, but from precultural references, like human nature, possible to be observed at any child from any culture (curiosity, inquiring "why"-questions...). Best, Helmut 08. Dezember 2018 um 07:54 Uhr "Stephen Jarosek" wrote: HELMUT >”groupthink is quite identical with culture” This is a category error. The characteristics that govern groupthink need to be distinguished from the principles that govern culture. Culture relates to pragmatism, knowing how to be, Heideggers Dasein. Groupthink describes something different. Some cultures are more predisposed to groupthink than others, and NO culture is exempt. My own humble estimation is that the problem of groupthink revolves around some kind of failure of firstness, in the mediation of secondness and thirdness. Reflexive and automaton-like behavior can take place with emphasis on secondness and thirdness (association and habituation) and the muting or degeneration of firstness, perhaps as a product of fear and the need to belong. Both the Left and the Right in politics are capable of groupthink. Paul Joseph Watson nails the groupthink of the left in his video on NPC-bots: https://youtu.be/M0aienuCBdg And we are all too familiar with the iconic groupthink of the right: https://www.gettyimages.ch/detail/nachrichtenfoto/jubilant-crowd-salutes-nazi-leader-adolf-hitler-nachrichtenfoto/81512242 sj From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 4:10 PM To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au Cc: tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Aw: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis Stephen, As I see it, groupthink is quite identical with culture. Noncultural references would be e.g. species-think (the ways all humans think, like wanting to take part, be noticed, be treated justly), organism-think-and reactions (e.g. the awarenesses and instincts of handling organism-specific problems like having to eat), and universal reactions like the constraints that the natural laws provide. Noncultural references have their roots in precontemporary-cultural ancient times, but of course are integrated into contemporary cultures. If some trait is the same in all existing cultures, it is likely, that this trait is a non-, meaning pre-cultural reference. E.g., that parents dont eat their children, Id say, is a mammal-trait, and also a bird-trait, not an animal-trait, as some animals eat some of their children, as I vaguely recall. Problem solving of mimetic desire may be a universal value: The Pauli-principle. Values are means to solve problem-patterns, or to avoid their expressions. I think it is valuable to analyse values regarding from which time scale aka taxonomical node they origin. My suspicion is, that many values are being assigned to one or the other culture, but for real stem from much earlier, much more general origins. This is the point of my opposition against culturalism/ overestimation of culture. Intention is to help deescalate culture clashes. Best, Helmut 06. Dezember 2018 um 11:20 Uhr "Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> HELMUT >”"This is the first day of the rest of my life", and can therefore rely on noncultural references, like humanism based on panhuman traits, universal logic (like Kant´s pure reason), or so. Therefore I am trying to emphasize these noncultural references.” Are you allowing yourself to be swayed by universal logic’s illusion of objectivity? Today’s pure reason of “universal logic” relies on materialistic comforts to be realized. A fix for every disease, a relief for every inconvenience. Pressures for survival are absent, and therefore courage is not required. The question is, is this “comfortable” state of mind sustainable? Can a cultural narrative that successfully averts the challenges of survival really apprehend the limits that test the self? Previous eras were dumbed down by their superstitions and prejudices, but they never had the opportunity to indulge in today’s scale of lazy, indulgent groupthink, because ultimately their superstitions and prejudices had to be tested against the realities of survival. So despite all this complexity in the “pure reason” of this information age, why
RE: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
HELMUT >groupthink is quite identical with culture This is a category error. The characteristics that govern groupthink need to be distinguished from the principles that govern culture. Culture relates to pragmatism, knowing how to be, Heideggers Dasein. Groupthink describes something different. Some cultures are more predisposed to groupthink than others, and NO culture is exempt. My own humble estimation is that the problem of groupthink revolves around some kind of failure of firstness, in the mediation of secondness and thirdness. Reflexive and automaton-like behavior can take place with emphasis on secondness and thirdness (association and habituation) and the muting or degeneration of firstness, perhaps as a product of fear and the need to belong. Both the Left and the Right in politics are capable of groupthink. Paul Joseph Watson nails the groupthink of the left in his video on NPC-bots: https://youtu.be/M0aienuCBdg And we are all too familiar with the iconic groupthink of the right: https://www.gettyimages.ch/detail/nachrichtenfoto/jubilant-crowd-salutes-naz i-leader-adolf-hitler-nachrichtenfoto/81512242 sj From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 4:10 PM To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au Cc: tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Aw: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis Stephen, As I see it, groupthink is quite identical with culture. Noncultural references would be e.g. species-think (the ways all humans think, like wanting to take part, be noticed, be treated justly), organism-think-and reactions (e.g. the awarenesses and instincts of handling organism-specific problems like having to eat), and universal reactions like the constraints that the natural laws provide. Noncultural references have their roots in precontemporary-cultural ancient times, but of course are integrated into contemporary cultures. If some trait is the same in all existing cultures, it is likely, that this trait is a non-, meaning pre-cultural reference. E.g., that parents dont eat their children, Id say, is a mammal-trait, and also a bird-trait, not an animal-trait, as some animals eat some of their children, as I vaguely recall. Problem solving of mimetic desire may be a universal value: The Pauli-principle. Values are means to solve problem-patterns, or to avoid their expressions. I think it is valuable to analyse values regarding from which time scale aka taxonomical node they origin. My suspicion is, that many values are being assigned to one or the other culture, but for real stem from much earlier, much more general origins. This is the point of my opposition against culturalism/ overestimation of culture. Intention is to help deescalate culture clashes. Best, Helmut 06. Dezember 2018 um 11:20 Uhr "Stephen Jarosek" HELMUT >"This is the first day of the rest of my life", and can therefore rely on noncultural references, like humanism based on panhuman traits, universal logic (like Kant´s pure reason), or so. Therefore I am trying to emphasize these noncultural references. Are you allowing yourself to be swayed by universal logics illusion of objectivity? Todays pure reason of universal logic relies on materialistic comforts to be realized. A fix for every disease, a relief for every inconvenience. Pressures for survival are absent, and therefore courage is not required. The question is, is this comfortable state of mind sustainable? Can a cultural narrative that successfully averts the challenges of survival really apprehend the limits that test the self? Previous eras were dumbed down by their superstitions and prejudices, but they never had the opportunity to indulge in todays scale of lazy, indulgent groupthink, because ultimately their superstitions and prejudices had to be tested against the realities of survival. So despite all this complexity in the pure reason of this information age, why is our groupthink dumbing us down? How can a people know so much, yet be so ignorant? It is because we are having everything defined for us. We are having our thinking served up for us on a platter. We are being told what to believe. Fake news and social media do our thinking for us. We don't have to think for ourselves, we have no need for courage or individualism. Ours is a smug, sanctimonious morality that judges harshly those that do not conform to our narrow, cognitively dissonant boundaries diversity is good, but diverse opinion that is politically incorrect is bad. Compare this with before the 20th century or the industrial revolution. People may once have led simpler lives, but there comes a point in their less materialistic lives, closer to the coalface, where they have to confront their limitations and access their courage and individualism, in order to survive. Witchburnings have limited currency when famines or floods hit. But in this hi-tech e
Aw: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
Stephen, As I see it, groupthink is quite identical with culture. Noncultural references would be e.g. species-think (the ways all humans think, like wanting to take part, be noticed, be treated justly), organism-think-and reactions (e.g. the awarenesses and instincts of handling organism-specific problems like having to eat), and universal reactions like the constraints that the natural laws provide. Noncultural references have their roots in precontemporary-cultural ancient times, but of course are integrated into contemporary cultures. If some trait is the same in all existing cultures, it is likely, that this trait is a non-, meaning pre-cultural reference. E.g., that parents dont eat their children, Id say, is a mammal-trait, and also a bird-trait, not an animal-trait, as some animals eat some of their children, as I vaguely recall. Problem solving of mimetic desire may be a universal value: The Pauli-principle. Values are means to solve problem-patterns, or to avoid their expressions. I think it is valuable to analyse values regarding from which time scale aka taxonomical node they origin. My suspicion is, that many values are being assigned to one or the other culture, but for real stem from much earlier, much more general origins. This is the point of my opposition against culturalism/ overestimation of culture. Intention is to help deescalate culture clashes. Best, Helmut 06. Dezember 2018 um 11:20 Uhr "Stephen Jarosek" HELMUT >”"This is the first day of the rest of my life", and can therefore rely on noncultural references, like humanism based on panhuman traits, universal logic (like Kant´s pure reason), or so. Therefore I am trying to emphasize these noncultural references.” Are you allowing yourself to be swayed by universal logic’s illusion of objectivity? Today’s pure reason of “universal logic” relies on materialistic comforts to be realized. A fix for every disease, a relief for every inconvenience. Pressures for survival are absent, and therefore courage is not required. The question is, is this “comfortable” state of mind sustainable? Can a cultural narrative that successfully averts the challenges of survival really apprehend the limits that test the self? Previous eras were dumbed down by their superstitions and prejudices, but they never had the opportunity to indulge in today’s scale of lazy, indulgent groupthink, because ultimately their superstitions and prejudices had to be tested against the realities of survival. So despite all this complexity in the “pure reason” of this information age, why is our groupthink dumbing us down? How can a people know so much, yet be so ignorant? It is because we are having everything defined for us. We are having our thinking served up for us on a platter. We are being told what to believe. Fake news and social media do our thinking for us. We don't have to think for ourselves, we have no need for courage or individualism. Ours is a smug, sanctimonious morality that judges harshly those that do not conform to our narrow, cognitively dissonant boundaries… diversity is good, but diverse opinion that is politically incorrect is bad. Compare this with before the 20th century or the industrial revolution. People may once have led simpler lives, but there comes a point in their less materialistic lives, closer to the coalface, where they have to confront their limitations and access their courage and individualism, in order to survive. Witchburnings have limited currency when famines or floods hit. But in this hi-tech era with solutions to every problem, we are exempt from being tested, and our unchallenged groupthink is making our cultures stupider than hatfulls of bricks. BOTTOM LINE - This indulgent groupthink of contemporary culture, with its logos masquerading as objectivity, is not sustainable. And people don’t see it, because they are governed by their subjective assumptions. Today’s “pure reason of universal logic” is a lazy indulgence that exempts us from being tested at the boundaries, and thus it has failed to overcome its fat, well-fed illusions governed by subjectivity. If one believes in reincarnation, then a straight line to hell is the most likely trajectory of this cultural narrative. Today’s neck-beard playing computer games may reappear elsewhere digging for yams in a desert, eking out their existence as a hunter-gatherer. Regards, sj From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 6:17 PM To: Stephen Jarosek Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Aw: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis Stephen, list, I see your points, and agree that culture, knowing how to be, and imitation are important. But I think, that for knowing how to be threre are other references besides culture too. Cultural evolution, historically, takes place in a certain, rela
RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
HELMUT >"This is the first day of the rest of my life", and can therefore rely on noncultural references, like humanism based on panhuman traits, universal logic (like Kant´s pure reason), or so. Therefore I am trying to emphasize these noncultural references. Are you allowing yourself to be swayed by universal logics illusion of objectivity? Todays pure reason of universal logic relies on materialistic comforts to be realized. A fix for every disease, a relief for every inconvenience. Pressures for survival are absent, and therefore courage is not required. The question is, is this comfortable state of mind sustainable? Can a cultural narrative that successfully averts the challenges of survival really apprehend the limits that test the self? Previous eras were dumbed down by their superstitions and prejudices, but they never had the opportunity to indulge in todays scale of lazy, indulgent groupthink, because ultimately their superstitions and prejudices had to be tested against the realities of survival. So despite all this complexity in the pure reason of this information age, why is our groupthink dumbing us down? How can a people know so much, yet be so ignorant? It is because we are having everything defined for us. We are having our thinking served up for us on a platter. We are being told what to believe. Fake news and social media do our thinking for us. We don't have to think for ourselves, we have no need for courage or individualism. Ours is a smug, sanctimonious morality that judges harshly those that do not conform to our narrow, cognitively dissonant boundaries diversity is good, but diverse opinion that is politically incorrect is bad. Compare this with before the 20th century or the industrial revolution. People may once have led simpler lives, but there comes a point in their less materialistic lives, closer to the coalface, where they have to confront their limitations and access their courage and individualism, in order to survive. Witchburnings have limited currency when famines or floods hit. But in this hi-tech era with solutions to every problem, we are exempt from being tested, and our unchallenged groupthink is making our cultures stupider than hatfulls of bricks. BOTTOM LINE - This indulgent groupthink of contemporary culture, with its logos masquerading as objectivity, is not sustainable. And people dont see it, because they are governed by their subjective assumptions. Todays pure reason of universal logic is a lazy indulgence that exempts us from being tested at the boundaries, and thus it has failed to overcome its fat, well-fed illusions governed by subjectivity. If one believes in reincarnation, then a straight line to hell is the most likely trajectory of this cultural narrative. Todays neck-beard playing computer games may reappear elsewhere digging for yams in a desert, eking out their existence as a hunter-gatherer. Regards, sj From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 6:17 PM To: Stephen Jarosek Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Aw: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis Stephen, list, I see your points, and agree that culture, knowing how to be, and imitation are important. But I think, that for knowing how to be threre are other references besides culture too. Cultural evolution, historically, takes place in a certain, relatively small time scale. Human traits also come from much more ancient evolutional achievements like humans, mammals, vertebrates, nervous animals, organisms, universal natural laws. I dont think that we disagree out of principle, we just emphasize differently: My point is, that somebody who feels that the culture s*he lives in sucks, and wants to get out of it, can do that, like you said, press the restart-button "This is the first day of the rest of my life", and can therefore rely on noncultural references, like humanism based on panhuman traits, universal logic (like Kant´s pure reason), or so. Therefore I am trying to emphasize these noncultural references. But I think, what you wrote about niches and subcultures is very helpful. E.g. in Albania on one hand there is the blood revenge culture, but on the other hand there also is the "Besa", which moderates it, and has saved many Jews from the Germans during the Nazi-Regime in WW2. I think, the "Besa" is somehow scaffolding on non-, or precultural habits or laws. So i think, the scaffold-metaphor "one thing is put on the former" is too simple, because there are these different time scales. Best, helmut 02. Dezember 2018 um 12:13 Uhr "Stephen Jarosek" wrote: I agree with you, Helmut, that the concept of culture is extremely important. More important than the vast, overwhelming majority of people can hope to understand. I was blessed with having to gr
Aw: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
izing this as I walk around the city streets of my grandfather’s homeland, with the realization “hey, so that’s where I got that quirky trait from!” (yes, I’m still discovering things about myself). It begins with mother's nurturing… nay, it begins in the womb… there are several examples of the latter referenced in my paper Pragmatism, Neural Plasticity and Mind-body Unity. Which brings us to your reference to fundamentalist religions, mafias, etc. That is, groupthink. What is the distinction between groupthink and healthy culture? One clue lies in the moral individualism of Christianity, its relationship to courage, and Jesus as a role model (I’m not a Christian, but I respect why Christianity was effective). Groupthink is a feature of fear and cowardice, and it sticks like glue, turning people into unquestioning NPC-bots yearning for social approval and the need to belong. Particularly relevant to today’s culture of social media. Hedonism and “fun” cultures are obsessed with needs and, despite their apparent “freedoms” and indulgences, are contained within strictly self-enforced limits revolving around social approval. Buddhism seems to incorporate a lot of these understandings. I’d just like to see one thing corrected though. Buddhists assume that all problems stem from desire. No, desire (firstness?) is downstream from assimitation (pragmatism). Assimitation, knowing how to be, is where all the problems begin, because that’s where all choices begin. Regards, sj no woo From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2018 8:07 PM To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Aw: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis Supplement: I think there is so much more to discuss, esp. about the concept of culture: Is culture merely tradition and a homeostatic system of unquestioned habits, or may it also be a culture of culture criticism and innovation, like a culture of habit-revising and habit-breaking? Or would this not be "culture" anymore, but something else, an emancipation from culture? And so on. Anyway, "culture" is merely the produce of an observation, just secondness, but not something containing thirdness essentialities such as values or laws. Btw, evolution has not stopped with the evolution of nervous systems. Causa efficiens is like proto-symbolic (force, laws... . To say natural laws are conventional, would suggest a polytheistic idea of gods having had a meeting, haha. So proto). Needs are indexical, id say, and wishes iconical. Simple nervous animals iconize. In their evolution there comes indexicality (like pheromons smelling, pointing, yelling) and symbolicity (like language) again. So I see individuation (evolution of individuals out of the universe) like a wave: symbolic(1), indexical(1), iconical(1), indexical(2), symbolical(2), and so on. Indexical(3) and symbolical(3) would mean, that individuality is handed over to a supersystem (like the internet), that integrates us, strips our individuality from us, and organizes us (makes us organs and no-more-organisms). In our own human interest, we must avoid this. It would be natural, but not good for us. In our civilized convenience-swing we have forgotten, that "natural" does not automatically mean "good", but may and often does mean "hostile". Nature in ancient times was justifiedly regarded as mostly hostile (sabre-teeth-tigers, snakes, locusts, diseases, famines...). Now, as nature appears in the form of technology, we dont recognize it as nature, but it is, and it is pure nature untamed, though phenomenologically completely different from the common-conceptual (green) nature we know and have tamed. Stephen, Edwina, list, I agree, that the term "operationally closed" is too much suggesting an objectivity, because "operation" sounds like something objective: An operation is mostly the same operation, seen from any perspective. So, with my own terms, i rather say "causally closed", and therefore, additionally to effect causation and final causation, I propose a secular kind of example cause (causa exemplaris). Causa efficiens I see as force reason, as effect causes are forced by natural laws. Regarding causa efficiens, no system is causally closed. Causa finalis I see as need reason, applying to organisms. Organisms have needs, and the system border for them and this causally closedness is the skin or the cell membrane of an organism. Causa exemplaris (secular) I see as wish reason or volation reason, applying to organisms with a nervous system, and any wish is causally contained within the nervous system, so there is causal closedness too. With social systems, I think, it is so, that they have an intention of becoming organism-like, or even human-like. Luhmann speaks
RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
nstream from assimitation (pragmatism). Assimitation, knowing how to be, is where all the problems begin, because thats where all choices begin. Regards, sj no woo From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2018 8:07 PM To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Aw: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis Supplement: I think there is so much more to discuss, esp. about the concept of culture: Is culture merely tradition and a homeostatic system of unquestioned habits, or may it also be a culture of culture criticism and innovation, like a culture of habit-revising and habit-breaking? Or would this not be "culture" anymore, but something else, an emancipation from culture? And so on. Anyway, "culture" is merely the produce of an observation, just secondness, but not something containing thirdness essentialities such as values or laws. Btw, evolution has not stopped with the evolution of nervous systems. Causa efficiens is like proto-symbolic (force, laws... . To say natural laws are conventional, would suggest a polytheistic idea of gods having had a meeting, haha. So proto). Needs are indexical, id say, and wishes iconical. Simple nervous animals iconize. In their evolution there comes indexicality (like pheromons smelling, pointing, yelling) and symbolicity (like language) again. So I see individuation (evolution of individuals out of the universe) like a wave: symbolic(1), indexical(1), iconical(1), indexical(2), symbolical(2), and so on. Indexical(3) and symbolical(3) would mean, that individuality is handed over to a supersystem (like the internet), that integrates us, strips our individuality from us, and organizes us (makes us organs and no-more-organisms). In our own human interest, we must avoid this. It would be natural, but not good for us. In our civilized convenience-swing we have forgotten, that "natural" does not automatically mean "good", but may and often does mean "hostile". Nature in ancient times was justifiedly regarded as mostly hostile (sabre-teeth-tigers, snakes, locusts, diseases, famines...). Now, as nature appears in the form of technology, we dont recognize it as nature, but it is, and it is pure nature untamed, though phenomenologically completely different from the common-conceptual (green) nature we know and have tamed. Stephen, Edwina, list, I agree, that the term "operationally closed" is too much suggesting an objectivity, because "operation" sounds like something objective: An operation is mostly the same operation, seen from any perspective. So, with my own terms, i rather say "causally closed", and therefore, additionally to effect causation and final causation, I propose a secular kind of example cause (causa exemplaris). Causa efficiens I see as force reason, as effect causes are forced by natural laws. Regarding causa efficiens, no system is causally closed. Causa finalis I see as need reason, applying to organisms. Organisms have needs, and the system border for them and this causally closedness is the skin or the cell membrane of an organism. Causa exemplaris (secular) I see as wish reason or volation reason, applying to organisms with a nervous system, and any wish is causally contained within the nervous system, so there is causal closedness too. With social systems, I think, it is so, that they have an intention of becoming organism-like, or even human-like. Luhmann speaks of intentional systems. This intention, I think, is the reason life has emerged and evolved, as it more or less applies to any CAS, the more complex it is, the more, and the more complex (like humans) the agents it relies on are, the more too. So the emergence of fundamentalist religions, rigid ideologies, mafias, and so on, is a natural thing, and the goal of systems theory imho would be to show this danger, and so to help prevent it. So, politically I see value in the dogma, that a social system should be kept as trivial (non-complex) and transparent as possible, for not being able to develop causal closedness (systems´ own needs and wishes). This dogma is in accord with democratic achievements like separation of powers, civil and human rights, freedom of speech, press, religion..., mobility (travel, work, and habitation freedom...). This dogma stands in opposition against right-wing people-think (volkskoerper), compulsory communism, and excessive (intransparent) dataism. Best, Helmut 29. November 2018 um 22:02 Uhr Von: "Stephen Jarosek" EDWINA >"Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal of fundamentalism in religion." Yes, as per my reply to Helmut, Luhmann's "operationally closed" perspective seems to be an extension of the objectivist paradigm. Fundamentalist religion, man-
