Відео

Thank you so much Sir. You are a legend

thank you

Anarchy is a childish fantasy.

Gold

Over the last 30 years we seem to have had a loss of meaning across the public sphere. This follows the centralization of ownership, and representation across mainline news sites, and click bait across all media. Law follows the money, and not moral virtues unless there is societal change. Meaning seems to be applied via Religious ideas tied to sociology which have morphed into new religions such as the pill for every ill, and money trumps all, and that the tenths system is sustainable. Resource use is only accelerating for all the advertisement of atmospheric warming as the managed sideshow of distraction. We lack a sense of REALISM as a species because we lack a coherent sense of the world. Meaning does not fit our reality because we have no spiritual awareness of our environment.

Appreciate your podcast btw. Helps to make Luhmann's ideas accessible to beginners

Thank you for the series

Im so happy I found this channel. Im doing my PHD now finding myself having to return to all these theorists. It has been extremely difficult navigating through all of them alone. Im excited to listen to this entire series. Did the series cover all 4 books? The playlist only displays Hans Kelsen.

Aaaphoyography

Very interesting, thanks. I'm starting to see a person as a microcosm of the world but it's early days in my appreciation of this...an example is why organs are different. I think they match a system of the world. The nitrogen cycle where nitrogen is gregarious in the redox tower, captured by the lungs, and the gregarious nature of nitrogen expressed thru singing and spoken language. This sort of metabolism folds in and out of "objects" like bodies and landscapes, with a liquid logos being encapsulated and expressed in the unfolding. Human understanding of ATP/ADP shift leads to food as fuel in a vehicle which objectifies the person when their organs are affected by dirty fuel. This objectification removes the liquidity. Metabolism is a mechanism for dealing with whatever is ingested whether needed or not, like law itself with rigid boundaries of relatedness that break on higher or lower levels to allow an autopoetic self. More simply put, humans became ruminants in the mammal object which leaves a residue which affects people as different perceptions streamlined, while the environment becomes a sterile wheat field, so both lose the liquidity of difference perceptions and become objectified, which demands law as a fix. If the laws of thermodynamics can be reinterpreted as topological shifts that are objects allowing readjustments or compromise on a lower level, our law could be reaching something like a torus where AGI is that torus of relationality guided in the all-human/non-human interface, basically the GI tract of the world. I need that book!

31:57 I don’t think it was Deleuze’s point that the traditional avenues of bourgeois control were disappearing outright but that they were being modified to better interface with techno-capital which would become the dominant form of control in the same way that the state was the dominant form of control in the early modern and late feudal ages and the family was the dominant form of control in early feudalism and antiquity. The school, hospital, and prison are still very much thriving as forms of control and where they were beholden to the state in the times of Descartes or Marx they pledge allegiance to capital now.

Very good, thanks. It seems that if power of or meaning in voting is shifting to big corporations and pledging one's dollars is one's vote, but really it's a vote for capitalism which is not what the state does. The state recreates a sort of disc or trampoline for engagement from consolidating a pool of money and unfolding that back into complexity, while maintaining roads etc that are part of a common world language of trade, including non-human. Capitalism seems to combine with hierarchy to form a sphere which is always projected into the future and becomes the sacred language focus, with trade language embedded and family language too, but only for human and not the non-human, sort of like the HR department of a big corporation is about the family of the corporation and not the human race.

I appreciate it

thank you,Dr.

thanks

A bit late to class, but a Magnificent Presentation!! Boatload of takeaways!

Nice and clear explication

Amazing video! The best I've seen about this chapter! Really complete.

I like the information 😊

Thank you. Always so carefully explained

I have followed Prof Moeller on Carefree Wandering and am drawn to his views. A word I was expecting to hear linked to Prolificacy is Credibility which at least in my mind is linked with Credit, Credential, Accredited, which I suppose is about qualification, suitability, fitness. These concepts have existed for a long time as in academic or professional qualification which are of course social system institutions. So I wander whether it is more an extension to a existing system than something new. I liked the point about critical vs dogmatic perspectives and first and second order observation and it seems to me that maybe dogmatic is itself second order thinking. Anyway, lots to chew on here for an amateur like me! Good podcasts. Thanks. 😊

Very interesting, thanks. The difficulty of positioning international law and societal as Martti mentions, a bit of a rabbit hole :)

I crave to understand Lehman as his mind seems to have penetrated our meaning making more deeply than most. Dr. Morgen is the embodiment of the man I had hoped to become but failed to due to my lower intelligence, I will order his book today and labor over it . Thank both of you for bringing this talk to You Tube as I would not have found it otherwise-however due to the poor quality of the sound recording It was unintelligible to my mind, I had to give up. Just wanted to provide my feed back.

thank you for posting !!

Very interesting stuff. Thank you for doing those interviews. Also interesting to hear that Johannes Schmidt thinks less of Luhmann's later work. I encountered this opinion when studying in Bielefeld (after 2013). The "more conceptual" parts of Luhmann's work were what inspired me to study sociology and still without them, I would find the overall theoretical assembly less valuable. It is like you can read the older theory through the lens of the newer elements like the emphasis on observation and distinction and medium/form. Seems to me also that doing innovative theorizing inspired by Luhmann would come from more radically embracing some of those later additions and create more space and loosen the coupling with the older stuff. (I really love some of the older stuff btw, like "Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation".)

My school 1st XV coach reiterated that “the oldest friends you’ll have one day, are the ones you made playing rugby”

Getting goose flesh here after 15 seconds in.

Beautiful video, thank you ❤

Bro philosophers love writing about sport.

Very interesting and thanks to both people, and to Kelsen of course for seeing past jurisprudence and moral attachments.

Deeply fascinating for me, thanks. If the self of the person is relational only and moves between objects, then law is that relational governance, and the objects of access can be arranged on different "levels". The relational self as ecosystem for planet object, sharing the kinetic availability via shape, frequency and kinetic availability in the photon exchange which is on the level of solar system relation via Sun object. This from (perhaps) the black hole object at the center of the galaxy with the various suns and planets in the galaxy as the relational many. So what is traded is not what is consumed in/as the object, when I look at a green plant that frequency is true (why I can infer), the shape is moving and somewhat ambiguous or approximated because everything is moving, and there's a certain available kinetic energy, that's sequestered for an objective in modern materials. I see this with the sensory array object as the many to one perception, and infer with the brain object what is there, the not-green plant. Objects as access arrangements. The tribe as first tech from humans, fire and reproductive tech from the ecosystem relational. International law as the relational for the planet object in the allowance of the sequestering of the available kinetic of the planet ecosystem, national law the same for the country against other countries as assigned geographical objects, ditto for tribes and families but not the person since their objects are from the ecosystem and not built in the ecosystem. The person and the ecosystem of the planet as equivalent, manifesting from objects as access arrangements and moving between objects.

Fascinating work. Thanks, and good luck on the book. It seems that the state has this element of control in two ways that conflict on two levels of individual and group. The income from taxes on what controls the person, in terms of what that person has available to them...could be sugar or alcohol, or concrete, or loss of movement by the idea of product objects that one can fold themselves into for "power"...and what controls the group as laws. Which is legitimate for a certain ontology. The person as simplified object instead of the person as a non-object (between objects) that is built and maintained by access thru objects, that I call access arrangements. Three objects for a person might be the GI tract, the senses near the brain, and the skin boundary for kinetic moving encapsulation. Reducing the person to a simplified object allows control when the loss of the person (from their access and thus response being sequestered in different ways according to the object of access in question) means an enhanced negative emotional state or neediness that - guess what - requires the state laws. But the laws are there to safeguard the access arrangement for the state "object", that which can be taxed for money, the life blood of the state. The money is already sequestered in itself and replaces Nature in a warped ontology. Instead of planet resource access as a sharing of the kinetic energy of objects, where what is perceived by one object is seen as another object but is actually that not used in the being of that object viewed. The green of a plant for instance, along with the amorphous shape and the truth of the frequency that describes by inference the object of the plant. which is everything but green at least above ground. Without a microscope, the culture of the plant isn't seen, this trading of objects in access arrangement objects. It's a reciprocal action of the state but not benign if the actions lead to a higher entropy state for the planet, in spite of the knowledge gathered in the sequestering. The bigger object of access, the planet, is simplified in its access arrangement for the life on it and the knowledge pool disappears on two levels. Before, the human knowledge pool disappeared for a while, then rebounded.

Very interesting, thanks for the reading. I'm thinking of the norm as the two aspects of the planet, both an object and objects in a process, and the person is like this too. It becomes a matter of balance between sharing and consolidation on one level, like a tribe, then as a country as an object bounded by geography that must be protected, now the blue marble. But object making goes wrong since power corrupts and allows (temporarily) a more powerful object than the rest of the objects in the biosphere. It goes back to how a person perceives objects in the world. Light has two components, the frequency and the kinetic energy, and when I perceive a plant I use some of this kinetic shared energy as green or aroma, that the plant doesn't use within it's object process. The kinetic is used while the frequency remains. The plant doesn't give this and I don't take it, this is the object of the planet manifesting as objects in a process balancing, as this arrangement using this particular frequency balances with this access arrangement using this other frequency. A person's powers are limited in acquiring these objects so groups are formed that tend to exclude other objects, and law is needed here, essentially these days to balance the planet as object by balancing countries and balancing inside those countries in their objects, both human and otherwise. A tough job!

This was insightful for me, thanks. It fits with my experiences in a courtroom, that as a stage where judge and prosecutor representing objects of law and government engage with "game pieces" or token objects. The prosecutors are allowed to be emotional in their presentation, as part of the stage, so this would seem to be the less static aspect. It would seem intrusive to that static aspect to make prisons into businesses for profit, or for judges to be emotional other than after the fact and maybe not even then. The judge or jury needs to be wholly rational in their presentation otherwise the stage play is confused because the role played by each object (law or government) is confused by presenting a duality of both reason and emotion in either. To me this is the static, the separation of emotion and rationality into a large infrastructure containing these objects, as a stage for the dynamic which is the adjusting of sizes of objects to create different levels.

Thanks.

In one way law is like a bridge between the individual life and the way recorded knowledge transcends death of the individual. Interfaces with different rates of time. What happened to the "promise" of chapter 4!!!

Thanks. What are the scales of justice measuring, a group to individual relation? Let's say there's two main thinking types, a black and white thinker and a pattern seeker. Both are needed since one provides the house for the other to make a home. As the human population grew the groups got bigger, and the efficiency of producing goods tends to lose diversity, which marginalizes the pattern seekers. Black and white thinkers apply their precepts to the country group and so countries against countries is a natural extension. The internet affords the pattern seekers while globalism would thwart them if loss of diversity is a result. Businesses producing goods are the black and white thinkers, while law is the home constructed by the pattern seekers, to avoid the bias of black and white thinking, where efficiency is very compelling and reduces complexity.

Interesting, gave me food for thought🙂 I find the comparison to LegalRuleML interesting. It's a logic framework for description of legal systems for computers, i've read about in the last weeks. So because i find it interesting and i've already thought about it, i think i can share a short version of my thoughts: LegaLRuleML just can handle legal actions, so no interpretation inside that framework too. LRML doesn't know about commands and only uses norms as building blocks. Validity is generally not really a thing described inside LegalRuleML, instead the source of the norm must always be traceable. So one can check validity only outside of this framework. But to compare it to your point what is the difference in state-violence and nonstate-violance. There is no inherent differentiation between from whom a rule is originated inside LRML. There is only a way to prioritize different norms to one another, if they are conflicting. But that is again outside of the logic itself and can only be imposed from outside the framework. And to the norms themselves; how norms work in LRML seems to match the description here. Norms are also just described as rule and the consequence for breaking the rule.

1:01:05 … moral posturing … has replaced politics and is thereby ... corrupting politics This sounds like prof. Moeller is concerned about the authenticity of politics, which is corrupted by a new profile with an emphasis on morality that is stronger the prof. Moeller is used to. Is posturing not an inevitable element of politics? Morality is more intense in current politics than in the last decades. Born in 1971, to me it looks like the last decades have been especially quiet - at least in Kohl-,Schroeder-, and Merkel-Germany. In face of the global climate crisis and the inability of the current power system to handle it, todays politics look rather corrupted to me. My hopes are on those moral claimants rejuvenating und strengthening politics so we can deal with todays global challenges in a more appropriate way.

Out of interest, where is the creator of this podcast from? Your accent sounds very similar to a South African accent. I am from South Africa, and this is intriguing.

There is already a group of German scholars, who are reading Luhmanns "Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft". Before that they read "Die Kunst der Gesellschaft" by Luhmann. Hartmut Esser and Ramy Youssef are part of that group for example. www.youtube.com/@lesemontagdiewissenschaftd7677

"i included it, because i like it"👍🥰very appropriate for a passion-project. I hope you get positive resonance.

Where do you get this artwork from?

Great interview. I made a great decision to subscribe in the past. Just waiting for an electronic version of the book, or whenever Oxford U Press decides to distribute it in my country. Thanks for this. I study analytic philosophy and Nietzsche, with interest in social philosophy, but Luhmann seems to me to have already exhausted most of the topics it delves in. A lot of time wasted reinventing the wheel will be saved by reading the English translations, or maybe even learning German just to get into Luhmann.

Glad you make time for these, however sporadically. Intelligent talk about Luhmann is not as plentiful as it might be... in English anyway... Look forward to listening to this one!

Rozmowa Nico Buitendaga z Johannesem Schmidtem na temat Niklasa Luhmanna oraz jego metody Zettelkasten. 32:42 - użyteczność lektury i wykonanej na jej podstawie notatki, zamiast notowanie wszystkiego, o czym traktuje dana książka, zatem odpowiedź na pytanie o to, czy to, co czytam, przyda mi się w mojej pracy, nauce, czy pasuje do moich notatek. 34:23 - Zettelkasten = złożony system poznawczy (complex cognitive system), druga pamięć (secondary memory). 33:58 - reguły metody Zettelkasten: 1) 34:39 - określony sposób organizacji notatek - całość stanowi żywy organizm, notatki nie mają stałego, właściwego, z góry przypisanego miejsca; niehierarchiczny porządek; [i tutaj przyznam, że nie do końca rozumiem; stałe miejsce, stały adres, ale brak stałego miejsca; nie wiem] 2) 37:28 - numeracja poszczególnych kart - notatki posiadają swoje adresy, umożliwiające ich porządkowanie oraz odnajdywanie; 3) 39:13 - linkowanie, łączenie notatek - nie ma żadnej systematyzacji, notatki łączą się dzięki odpowiednim odwołaniom; 4) 41:39 - indeks słów kluczowych - czyli zbiór notatek z odpowiednimi hasłami i adresami poszczególnych notatek. Co do ostatniego, nie ma potrzeby w karcie ze słowem kluczowym odwoływania się do wszystkich notatek zawierających dane słowo kluczowe, ponieważ notatki z reguły się ze sobą łączą. Odwołanie do określonej notatki, pozwala sprawdzenie innych połączonych, czy również odwołują się do danego słowa kluczowego. Zatem nie ma potrzeby indeksowania wszystkiego i wszędzie. Warto zdać się na sieciowy charakter wszystkich notatek, dzięki czemu to, czego szukamy jest jak najbardziej odnajdywalne.

I have a hard time imagining there ever was a time since societies emerged that humans haven't relied largely on second order observations to understand their world. It seems to me a side effect of us being social creatures, instead of tasting every berry we use second order observations and ask someone which ones are safe to eat. Keep in mind that that doesn't affect the fact that we use second order observations a lot in current society

Moeller is a very clear educator of profound ideas. The host too asks great questions. The end comments on politics today is particularly useful.

Thomas is just awesome. tnk u for bringing him and for asking very interesting questions

Fascinating! However, The problem I have with Luhmann and the like is, that you do not seem to gain much that could not have been said with simple words. Once you translate social structures into Luhmanns constructs they just echoes back simple insights but now on steroids and you allured to believe you got some profound insights by using His academian toolbox. Luhmann’s system is in this way just a system within a system that seeks Darwinian self justification.