tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5139380866860511018.post165678623642491794..comments2024-03-28T10:33:13.695+00:00Comments on Improvisation Blog: Dialogical DesignUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5139380866860511018.post-26997290653289723582022-05-18T15:44:02.559+01:002022-05-18T15:44:02.559+01:00While Maturana worked with Luhmann and acknowledge...While Maturana worked with Luhmann and acknowledged his endeavour, he continued to insist that social systems could not autopoietic because we have bodies. This point is that social systems are structurally coupled (using language or more generally with communication technology) with psychic systems and that bodies are structurally coupled with bodies. What Maturana interpreted this to mean (incorrectly) was that physical experiences and sensation can have no influence on society if society is a closed system. This is a misunderstanding. The body is always in the environment of psyhyic systems each affect or sensation is provided with meaning by the psychic system. In experiencing an utterance, consciously we make a distinction between information and uttrerance - we extract the meaning - a meaning making process. But communication is only created by communication, but this system responds to the material world via the meaning made of that experience by the psychic system. Even though the social systems, psychic systems and the bodily system are closed and respectively communication begets only communication, thought begets thought and sensation begets sensation as difference. These systems irritate, perturbate, disturbe each other mediated by conscious psyhic systems. This in fact solves the problems of Cartesian duality of mind and body as a distinction in complex ecology of thought, feeling and communication. What is illuminating is the way in which structures have evolved within these systems that couple between them by conditioning complexity. However, we want to conceive of the body, it is only every a conception of an environment of the thought. Steve Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00462744738711078055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5139380866860511018.post-23474428505292377832022-05-18T11:40:44.665+01:002022-05-18T11:40:44.665+01:00Do you have a reference for where Maturana accepte...Do you have a reference for where Maturana accepted Luhmann?Mark Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12438712149227569557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5139380866860511018.post-79614394555467900892022-05-17T12:52:09.672+01:002022-05-17T12:52:09.672+01:00Luhmann used M&Vs idea, but instead of the bio...Luhmann used M&Vs idea, but instead of the biochemical elements - he de-ontologised and de-tempororalised molecular elements replacing a phenomenological conception of meaning following Husserl. This is not then an analogy of biological systems but a general theory of autopoietic systems. Maturana and Varela accepted this. <br /><br />Autopoieisis means that cells are closed but it does not require any structural determination, structures, as Maturana pointed out, are orthogonal to autopoiesis. I have not seen anything that claims otherwise, unless the assumption is made that autopoiesis leads to structural determination which it doesn't. <br /><br />The answer to both questions is no, because autopoiesis has been misinterpreted.<br /><br />Dialogue involves physiology. I don't think there is always a need to moderate androgens. I don't always feel frightened when talking to others. I don't think this process is excluded from fascism. Biological systems only communicate through meaning systems of consciousness and communication. Steve Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00462744738711078055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5139380866860511018.post-38699336814733189252022-05-14T13:00:40.870+01:002022-05-14T13:00:40.870+01:00I think it's interesting to reflect on Luhmann...I think it's interesting to reflect on Luhmann's statements here because they derive from Maturana and Varela. The argument that M&V had with Luhmann was that he had misapplied the biological idea of autopoiesis to communication. Did Luhmann create a meta-biology? <br /><br />Then there is the question of autopoiesis itself in biology. Are cells operationally-closed, structurally-determined autopoietic systems? If that now no longer fits the science, do we need to look again at what Luhmann said about communication?<br /><br />I think the answer to both these questions is yes. That's not to take away the genius of Luhmann, but it is to turn it into a question rather than an answer.<br /><br />Dialogue is in part physiological. There is a need to moderate the androgens which might lead to fight or flight, and to become more porous and less defensive in our relation with others. This never happens in fascism. This also has a hormonal/epigenetic component. That is based on communication at a cellular level long before utterances are selected (indeed it is part of the selection mechanism)<br /><br /><br />Mark Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12438712149227569557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5139380866860511018.post-61802456551496909882022-05-13T13:24:08.582+01:002022-05-13T13:24:08.582+01:00Thinking can only ever be about thinking, consciou...Thinking can only ever be about thinking, consciousness is self-referential and operationally closed. Similarly with the system of communication, it is self-referential and operationally closed. However communication is in the environment of consciousness and vice versa, they disturb each other but remain unknown to each other but share language to structure the noise that they throw at each other. <br /><br />Fascism as totalitarianism (and Stalinsism) are dialogic. Communication takes place (thinking and therefore reflexivity takes place), it must therefore be dialogic.<br /><br />What totalitarianism does is dedefferenitiates functional systems of politics, law and economics handing all decisions to the dictator. It is medievalisation process or modernisation process. To stabilise this unstable totalitarian system 'others' were constructed as an enemy and subject to genocide. Totalitarianism is a reaction to modernity as functional differentiated society. Steve Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00462744738711078055noreply@blogger.com