What is the most important question that we western people should ask ourselves in this era?

Here I remain a traditional Marxist. I am fully aware of the big fiasco, what my friend Alain Badiou calls the obscure disaster, that is to say the radical failure of , lets call it, the communist experiment. But nonetheless I think the problem remains. Which problem? The Fukuyama-problem. What do I mean by this? It is easy to make fun of Fukuyama – ‘Uh that naive guy, who thought history is over’, but aren’t practically all of us, even the large majority of lefties, aren’t we all the fact of Fukuyamist? That is to say, we basically accept the idea that capitalism and democracy the way we understand it, the liberal democracy, are here to stay. So that you don’t challenge his most fundamental framework. All you can consider is how to make the system a little bit better: More tolerance, less racism, more welfare state, or whatever.

So you know In the same way, when I was young, as I remember, we were often talking about we want socialism with a human face, it is as if today we want global capitalism with a human face. So the problem for me is, is this enough or not? That is to say, the problem that we are confronting today are they of this kind that, at least in the long term, it is possible to resolve them or at least to contain them at a tolerable level within the capitalist frame, or, do we need more radical measures.

What is wrong with capitalist modernity as we experience it in, lets say, western Europe?

Again, you addressed an implication. You said, capitalist modernity, global capitalism, then you said western European. The problem for me is that capitalism today is no longer specifically Western. We can not play this leftist, multicultural where capitalism is imperialist, eurocentric and so on. Isn’t clear that today capitalism is truly global? By this i mean, it is not any longer even rooted in a certain civilization. It is a kind of neutral global machine, which can function here or there. We can have capitalism in protestant country, catholic country, buddhist country, ok, there are some problems with Islam maybe, but basically it is a global machine. So where is the problem here? On of the problems is that: ‘Till know, one of the relatively convincing arguments for capitalism was that – however in the short term it might be pushed or helped by a little bit of terror, dictatorship, as in Chile or South Korea – nonetheless in the long term it demands democracy, it cannot survive, it brings democracy. I wonder what is now going on in China, but not only in China, what we obscurely refer to as the so called Asian values. Capitalism is not something new. I think it too optimistic to think that sooner or later China will become democratic, what if China, but also Singapore and other, has truly invented something new. A capitalism which is maybe even more dynamic in the sense of mobilizing peoples productivity than our western capitalism, but which nonetheless doesn’t need western style democracy. So this already makes it problematic, and we should insist more and more that capitalism today is truly global, it is no longer something which is rooted in western society. One should give to the devil what belongs to the devil. Let me be frank, probably never in the history of humanity have comparatively such a large number of people lived in such relatively comfortable welfare, but also with the degree of freedom, as did at least the majority of Europe after second world war. So the problem is not: is this good or bad? The problem is, can it go on indefinitely. I claim, it cannot.

First, the way it is in western Europe…lets call it benevolently, like the one we spoke about really existing socialism. Or really existing capitalism, as we know it in Western Europe, where there is nothing radically bad with it, I only think, and we see this with all this pressures to dismantle the welfare state, that in the long term it cannot survive.

Considering the threats we are facing today, either industrial catastrophes, a new Chernobyl or melting of the polar ice, global warming. We will have to invent, reinvent, rehabilitate the concept of large collective actions, everybody knows this

What do you mean by large collective decisions?

I mean the following, what became totally discredited after 1990’s was the idea of that a large group, the whole state nation makes a conscious decision and defends it, the idea was that it was the first step towards totalitarian state. Every idea of a more centralized, radical systemic measure, was dismissed as [...] totalitarian. I think we will have to return to it.

Can you give me an example of a necessary radical systemic decision?

It is clear that without some kind of a international legislation or measures, which will then really be imposed with appropriate punishments, it will not be possible even to confront properly the ecological effect.

Lets turn to Europe in the light of the Danish Muhammad drawings [the cartoon crises]…

This interview is an excerpt from the “The wild philosopher” an episode of the program “Deadline 2. sektion” of DR.  Jes Stein Pedersen is the interviewer.

“There are three dominant types of online media owners: mass media organizations, telecommunication operators and internet service providers (ISP). All three publish news and information on the internet (online media) (…) New or alternative providers of online media are rare. (…)

Contrary to the general assumption that barriers to market entry are generally lower for online media than for other mass media the analysis has shown that established media organizations and companies dominate online media markets. (…)

It can be concluded that online media have so far contributed little to enhance ownership and content diversity. (…)

Online media produced by public service broadcasters play an important role in counterbalancing dominant trends such as concentration and commercialization. Attempts to limit PSB activities to radio and broadcasting would eliminate these online voices to the detriment of competition in quality.”

Thanks for the hint Anders.

What we call common sense—the body of widely accepted truths—is, just as Heidegger and Nabokov thought, a collection of dead metaphor. Truths are the skeletons which remain after the capacity to arouse the senses—to cause tingles—has been rubbed off by familiarity and long usage. After the scales are rubbed off a butterfly’s wing, you have transparency, but not beauty—formal structure without sensuous content. Once the freshness wears off the metaphor, you have plain, literal, transparent language—the sort of language which is ascribed not to any particular person but to ‘common sense’ or ‘reason’ or ‘intuition’

Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Cambridge University Press, New York. 1989, p. 152

Dead metaphor as used by Lakoff and Johnson in Metaphors we live by, 1980, but as well by Nietzsche in 1873, “illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions”.

Thanks goes to Alan F. Blackwell to have unraveled the discussion of metaphor in The Reification of Metaphor as a Design Tool.

(Picture is images of Alan Blackwell)

When Luhmann addresses the need to understand and choose the observation point for a second-order observation before the observation can be processed, and when he constitutes past and present as horizons of the now, does he not just align himself with the findings of deconstruction? Deconstruction acknowledges that knowledge about the world can only be obtained in “the edge” of own system (or should we say Grand Story), hereby acknowledging that you are still a part of the system, which you are describing, and therefore not without biased/absolute observation point.

Luhmann acknowledges this when he distinguishes between first-order and second-order observations, but seems to believe that the second-order observation cures the paradox:

“Constructivist theories maintain that cognitive systems are not in a position to distinguish between the conditions of existence of real objects and the conditions of their own knowledge because they have no access to such real objects other than through knowledge. It is certainly the case that this defect can be corrected at the level of second-order observations.” (Luhmann, The Reality of Mass Media, 2000, p5)

Am I caught in the discourse of deconstruction, when I lay out like this?

This is though only observing one part of the environment, that of deconstruction.

When the act of finding the differences (the relationship) between system and environment, it is actually similar to the psychic process that cognitive metaphor-theorist describes. For them new knowledge is obtained through interpretation of the object by aligning it with the already known. The question the mind is asking is: How is this new thing (the system/the object) different from what I already know (the environment).

It aligns well with Luhmanns stressing of the importance of the environment:

“The system is neither ontologically nor analytically more important than the environment; both are what they are in reference to each other” (Luhmann, Social Systems, 1995, p177)

The beauty of Luhmanns system theory though, is that he provides the guiding distinction system/environment, the ontological tool, where the goal of the second-order observer is to determine the reference in the difference between system and environment in the observations moment and space.

Even though deconstruction is turning its back to metaphysics, it seems that Luhmanns social system is much more grounded in a phenomenological perspective, when it simply deals with the basics of reality’s communication.

The guiding distinction system/environment becomes a helpful tool, that will keep any analysis grounded in nothing but a theory, that can be counter-proved by same method in the next moment, as communication is only a communication at a given situation.

(the picture is Res Koolhaas’ Casa de Musica in Porto. Mostly an existing building, but surely a building that gives a new way of understanding a building or the world at large:)

Morin sees Europe as an entity not really well defined from the geographical, cultural or ethnic point of view. He then tries to define what common points have developed and existed along History between the nations and other political organisations which have flowered on its space and which could have explained both the extraordinary expansion and global success of Europe and its terrible implosion and decadence during the XXth century. He finds them to be what he calls a “dialogic” between nihilism and creation, a permanent instability, source of progress as well as destruction. What he calls dialogic is the opposition between two ideas which are antagonistic without being contradictory or exclusive and as the same time complementary without being stable. He goes a bit further by explaining that it is this dialogic which has created the European Nation States and the modern democratic systems, but also the ideologies that have nearly destroyed Europe: Marxism and Fascism. This dialogic has also transformed Europe, both through its oppression of the rest of the world through the colonial system, and through its adoption and integration of other cultures in its own identity. Due to this, Europe has both spread its defining principles through the world and acquired a massive responsibility in doing it. The dialogic between cultures and civilization has made European civilization in some way compatible with all cultures.

The ideas might not be all that novel, but surely are interesting. Edgar Morin has as well written “The Cinema, or The Imaginary Man”.

“Users in the Poynter study frequently alternated between multiple sites:

• they would read something in one window
• then switch to another window and visit another site
• and then return to the first window and read some more on the first site; possibly to turn to the second window again later in the session

The lesson for site designers is that users are not focused on any single site. There is not even such a thing as “a visit” to a site: even while the user is “visiting” your site, he or she is also checking out the competition. Truly, the Web as a whole forms the user experience.

Site design must accommodate people who leave and return frequently:

• help users reorient themselves
  • plain and simple headlines immediately tell users what each page is about
  • simple page titles that start with a salient keyword help users pick out pages from the minimized tiles in the Windows task bar
• do not assume users can remember their entire browsing session:
  • provide breadcrumbs and other location tools
  • do not change the standard link colors – doing so makes it harder to recognize what pages the user has already seen
• use standard terminology to minimize the need for users to switch context and remember what you call things
• during user testing, interrupt the users for a few minutes if they don’t leave your site on their own (in order to test their ability to return to the site)”

There is a newer study from 2006 on eye-tracking as well, also from “the guru” Jakob Nielsen.

“Scott McCloud’s brilliant Understanding Comics teaches us a lesson that transcends the realm of comics: if we see two things next to each other, we draw a connection from one to the other. Our minds construct a sequence, a connection, a relationship. Even if the relationship is obscure, we’ll eventually find it (or make one up). In space, we call this collage. In time, it’s montage. We see things next to each other and we imagine a sequence. We see a sequence, and we imagine a story, a cause and its effect.”

Introduction

Analytical strategy (the epistemology) (from the introduction)

how will the epistemologist construct the observation of others?

Contrary to method, which is observation of an object, while analytical strategy is observation of the observation (alike ontology and epistemology)

Niels Aakerstroem Andersen describing Niklas Luhmanns system theory (page 63 to 93)

Social systems is autopoietic systems of communication consisting in and by communication.

System theory as second-order observation (the Spencer-Brownian Luhmann)

Form and difference

Viewing observations is the operation of creating distinctions (difference between smt and smt else)

(and what is observed is above all dependent on this distinction. (64))

Indication/distinction

Distinction is always two-sided; inner: the indication, the marked space (m)

Only one side is marked, as it is only one observation.

The unity of the distinction (inner and outer side) is defined as form

Second-order observations

first-order is observing the indication, second-order is observing the indication + blindspots (outer part of the distinction / the unmarked space)

Reference

The operation of observation also establishes distinction between self-reference and external reference.

First-order uses external reference as it is a system distinguishing smt in the environment.

Perspective is mono-contextual: uses distinction without being able to distinguish.

Second-order is self-referential as it observes the system itself

Perspective is poly-contextual: observer knows that

- she cannot see, that she cannot see

- reality depends on the observer

- the observed is contingent with the difference, that defines the boundaries of the observation

The system is auto-logical (not simply self-referential), as the perspective makes the system describe its object and itself, and the description modifies the object to be described.

Distinctions

All observations are within a distinction, but not all observations are second-order observations.

Three ways of making distinctions:

1) object: distinguishing smt from smt else, which is unspecified (horse/not-horse)

2) concept: indicating in a way that restricts the unmarked (man/woman)

3) second-order concepts: restrictive distinctions, which can be re-entered or re-enter themselves (gov/opposition)

A system is only able to observe itself if it is able to copy its guiding distinction and re-enter it into itself. (69) [rule of second-order observations]

Paradox

First-order paradox: The observer cannot see the distinction on which her observation is based, and yet she can make dinstinctions.

Second-order: the fact that the distinction system/environment is, at the same time the same and not the same once the subsystem has seperated itself (copying the distinction and re-entering it) in order to observe the system as observer.

Conducting system-theoretical analysis

a system theorist must

account for and substantiate his choice of guiding distinctions

account for the conditioning of the chosen guiding distinction (conditions of the indication)

point out, substantiate and account for the implications of the exact observation point. (the moment one system has been selected as observation point, others become environment and is viewed through and determined by that system)

The concept of meaning

All systems are autopoietic, meaning that they themselves create the elements they consist of, including the the constitutive boundary between system and environment. (72)

Social systems create themselves through meaning and are unable to operate outside of meaning. Meaning is unfixable, unstable and indefinable. Meaning is a concept of difference.

Meaning is simply the distinction of actuality/potentiality. [based on Husserls phenomenology!]. Meaning is the link between the actual and the simultaneously presented possibilities.

The concept of communication

Social systems operate in terms of meaning in the shape of a closed connection of communication.

A communication is the synthesis of the selection of information, selection of form of message and the selection of understanding (a subsequent communication (therefore it requires at least two communications in order for a communication to exist (in this sense social systems arise in the recursivity of communication))).

All above shape meaning as a medium: The selection of information shapes the distinction of actualized information/possible information; the selection of message shapes the distinction of actualized message/possible messages; and the selection of understanding shapes the the distinction of actualized connection/possible connections. (77)

Form analysis (78)

Form is the unity of a difference. [To what is the marked indication linked? What gives the restriction in the concept distinction or the second-order concept distinction?]

System analysis (80)

A social system is simply the unity of the distinction system/environment. When communication recursively connects with communication, social systems emerge because of the distinction by the communication between self-reference and external reference – between that which constitutes the system itself and that which makes up the environment.

How does a system distinguish between system and environment when it observes [the communicative descriptions]?

Differentiation analysis

Re-entry of the distinction system/environment: system/environment becomes system, which differs from the environment etc etc.

the form of differentiation (the unity of the difference between the systems): how are the differences similar or not similar (similar/different)

Luhmanns example of the differentiation of society (the point of observation:society):

segmental diff: similar sub-systems as tribes, villages and families

stratified diff: differentiation in uneven layers on the difference top/bottom

functional diff: differentiation in dissimilar sub-systems that differ from each other in respect to their function in society.

Media analysis (form/medium)

media (mediums) is loosely coupled elements, characterized by high resolution, being accessible to Gestalt fixations. (84) (Form is on the other hand fixed connection of elements.)

Money is an example of a medium. Decisions are an example of form; they impress themselves in a medium and condense its elements into one decision, which is only a decision in relation to previous decisions and decisions not taken.

Concrete example:

The printing of the company’s logo on paper forms the medium money by requiring expenditure, the decision is not interchangeable , its meaning is tied to time and space, and can only be understood in relation to the company’s other decisions.

The form/medium staircase [continuously re-entry as above with the guiding distinction system/environment]: distinction, meaning, language, media of distribution (writing, television), general symbolic media (money).

Semantic analysis (condensation [of meaning]/meaning)

Semantics is based on the distinction between meaning and condensed meaning. Condensation means that a multitude of meaning is captured in a single form, which subsequently makes itself available to an undefined communication. Consequently, semantics are characterized as the accumulated amount of generalized forms of difference (for example concepts, ideas, images, and symbols) available for the selection of meaning within the systems of communication.

Three dimensions of meaning, which enables a distinction between three semantics:

1) The fact dimension; semantics of facts as generalized forms of “being one and not the other”

2) the social dimension: generalized forms of ego and alter; no “us” without “them”

3) the temporal dimension: the tension between past and future; “What moves in time is past/present/future together, in other words, the present [-] along with its past and future horizons” (88) [a direct consequence of the guiding distinction system/environment!]

Connections between the different analytics [Andersen on "thin ice" as he says (Luhmann on thin ice?)]

Form analysis analyses the unity of a concept, points to the blind spots by illustrating how it is based on a paradox [see page 68!, no notes here]. The semantic analysis is then able to employ the paradox as a guiding principle in tracing the history of specific semantics.

Semantics and differentiation (89) Thesis: the simultaneously transformational ruptures in the history of semantics indicates a transformation of the social structure.

System analysis and media analysis. Thesis: the historical evolution of new media makes the formation of new social systems possible. The study of how new social systems arises, therefore , should always begin with an analysis of the media-related conditions of the emergence of that system. (90)

[Concept of complexity is left out!]

Kommunikation, kompleksitet og kontingens.
Den kommunikative proces skaber kompleksitet, der af Luhmann defineres som det forhold, at ikke alle elementer i et system på samme tid kan aktualiserer alle potentielle relationer til systemets andre elementer. Derfor betyder kompleksitet altid selektionstvang, man må vælge en mulighed blandt andre, der ikke i samme tidsmoment kan aktualiseres. Det er hertil kun kompleksitet der kan reducere kompleksitet.

Organisationer må konstant kunne matche omverdenskompleksiteten internt ved at opbygge en intern kompleksitet til at afkode og tolke informationer fra omverdenen, således at den vedvarende kan adapte til det kommunikations – og konkurrence miljø den agerer indenfor.

I det sociale møder man kompleksiteten som kontingens: ”Noget er kontingent, når det hverken er nødvendigt eller umuligt; når det altså kan være sådan, som det er (var, vil blive), men også kunne være muligt på en anden måde”

Selvreference og kultur
Tre niveauer: Basal selvreference der viser hvilke elementer der kan vinde anknytning og accept i organisationen. Selvrefleksivitet der viser hvilke legitimeringsformer der er kondenseret i systemet for hvad man kan sige, hvorledes etc. til hvem, hvad enten det er for at sige noget selv, eller for at tilbagevise hvad andre siger, eller for at søge at få besluttet en ny norm for hvad man kan sige, eller for at tilbagevise en andens forsøg på at installere en ny norm.

Dvs. at studier af selvrefleksivitet viser organisatoriske legitimeringsformer herunder også for ændring af legitimeringsformer. Refleksion afdækker hvilke selvbeskrivelser der verserer i organisationen, om de er delte eller er forskellige i forskellige subkulturer. Alle tre niveauer giver mulighed for at beskrive hensigtsmæssighed og kongruens i organisationskommunikationen.

Symbolsk generaliserede kommunikationsmedier og meningsgrænsen
Meningsgrænsen beskrives også i forhold til hvordan organisationskommunikationen knytter an i forhold til funktionssystemer og altså i forhold til hvilke koder der anvendes i kommunikationen og hvilke kondenseringer der kan identificeres i forhold til værdivalg i koderingen. Det funktionelt differentierede samfund beskrives af Luhmann (2000, 1999) som uddifferentieret omkring en række funktionssystemer såsom politik, økonomi, videnskab, kærlighed med flere. Hvert funktionssystem er kommunikativt uddifferentieret omkring et symbolsk generaliseret kommunikationsmedie (SGK) med en binær kode. (Det politiske SGK er fx magt og koden position/opposition)

Den kommunikative organisation kan kun opretholde sig selv, hvis den er reflekteret om sin kommunikation i alle koder. Selvorganiserende kommunikationssystemer opbygger semantikker, der virker som preselektioner i forhold til alle SGK også mht. dem der ikke har udviklet sig til funktionssystemer.

Aflejringen af preselektioner er en vigtig del af den samlede organisationskultur og kan afdækkes gennem kommunikationsanalyser i forhold til hvilke holdninger der er fremherskende og umiddelbart møder accept, samt omvendt i forhold til hvad der negeres eller slet ikke kommer på tale som alternativ i beslutningsprocessen.

Neorealism and New Wave, go home with your everydayness and auteur-eyes and take your pastiche of dogme 95 with you!

Is it truth in front of the camera? Lie! Where is my special effects? Lev continues:

“Until recently [2001], Hollywood studios where the only ones who had the money to pay for digital tools and for the labor involved in producing digital effects. However, the shift to digital media affects not just Hollywood, but filmmaking as a whole.”

(Almost relevant: For everybody: Google SketchUp and jumpcut offering film editing online)

Even Russian Ark, this one and a half hour long dreamy shot of a movie ends in a digitally created image, the films great metaphor: on board a floating ark.

While Neorealism and New Wave (as well as Dogme 95) would reject the institutional system of Hollywood giving no artistic freedom, the digital mastering of film can exist also outside of Hollywood as tools and remixing culture is getting more widespread.

By the way, still waiting for Sin City 2 after enjoying Sin City, another great film/animation:

(Love that Kevin-actor, in Lord of the Rings his pure unflawed righteous Frodo is too rediciously played (Right, Ilin?!). Here: “damn, he is slick!”).