Re: structure & communication

Dear Fisers,

Soren wrote:
>On the basis of evolutionary and ecological thinking using selection
theory going into socio-communication on a basis of meaning we might be
able to do something. This is what some of Niklas Luhmann's work is about,
where he operates with biological, psychological and social systems
autopoiesis (may be it is better to talk of organisational closure as
Varela and Mingers suggests). Luhmann work with information and meaning as
two different concepts.
>The part of his huge work I have read and understood I think there are
many valuable things, but also that his meaning concept is insufficiant
founded and that his understanding - at least of Peirce's - semiotics is
not sufficient. So future work should try to integrate the progresses he
has made.

Indeed, Luhmann�s approach turned out to be very fruitful. Although he died
some days ago at the age of 70, his work is continued by a lot of
"disciples", and partly I am one of them.
As he tried to establish a general system theory using Weber, Parsons,
Habermas and also bio-approaches like autopoiesis, he tried to show that
all kind of creative or genetic structures show similar qualities:
redundancies and feed-back-loops, which allow a return to prior stages of
evolution (he called it re-entry, term I think he took from Spencer-Brown)
to "renew" the gentic material under new circunstances.
On the sociological level this kind of re-entry - which besides enhances
variety - allows an important widening of the limits of structural
adaptability and of the range of internal system communication.
Following Luhmann, the significance of information emerges if an event
turns out to be selective, if it chooses out of several possible states of
a system. The ability to recognize differences has therefore to be a basic
quality of systems, linked to self-referencialitiy.
Such an observing or measuring system - and there is no doubt that social
systems are of that kind - works with a closed and circular structure which
decomposes immediatly if there is no constructive activity to delay
decomposition.
I made my own picture looking at the emergence o a new significance of
signs by exampling it with a card game, usually played by using sequences
of four different nipes. The significance of a certain card in the game in
relation to the other cards in the players hand changes: the As may be the
highest-value card, but if you expect a king to complete your poker, the As
dealed to you does not create the significant additional value. The same
may happen to the partners hands.
That means: there is an information value in the elements (events) itself,
an "Eigenvalue", but it is only "rescued" when placed into an appropriate
sequence.
Time, like Pedro stated, enters the game. But more than the duration of
time in seconds or hours, what really matters is the factor
"syncronicitiy". It determines if the moment of placement is or not
appropriate to "make the difference" in a given sequence. Syncronicity
means the coincidence of events in time, so that one "fits" to the other.
(e.g. the coincidence of 4 kings at the same time in the players hand)
Luhmann uses "coincidence" as an important part of information-reality.
There has not to exist any link of causality to establish information: just
two events which apear simultaneously or in a predictable way to be
reffered one to each other are enough.
Like in the following example: "When the neighbour enters his garage, I
usually begin to cook". The causality in this case is purely informational.
He knows, it is 11.30h a.m., time to prepare the meal. In short his wife
will come home from work.
Some signals have start character. A sequence of events may be allocated in
its functional role. So it may represent a whole sequence. When it appears
(when the neigbour enters the garage), the sequence "working day lunch" is
called and executed.
The variety of cultural codes (VEMs) is controlled and limited by social
conditioning, based on the tradition of the past. Does this not "work" any
more, then social transformation processes, inpredictable in its
realization, take over. This affects the process of sequencing cultural
codes, that means the education system in the large sense of the term.

To continue the bio-soc parallels: Sequencing in molecular biology means
composition of an information-code which refers to cells in an organism.
Sequencing in cultural sociology means composition of an information-code
which refers to events in an organisation. Cells, like events, die and are
substituted by others, similars, but different. Different events mean a
different sequence in elementary information codes, which may express a
social transformation as a change of (usual) behaviour.
Different from the meaning of the code himself (determined by previous
recording), the meaning of the (accidental) change is not determined
previously: there are usually many alternatives of changed behaviour before
one of them is executed.
This variety creates a higher degree of liberty of choice. There is just
one condition: the appearence of the emerging information-sequence has to
be different from the previous. Establishing this difference, the new
fenomena may be functional within a "division of labour" in a defined
network.

I know this is a rather functionlist approach subject to severe
epstemological claims. But as it works in everyday life, it deals with
reality, and that "fits".

Gottfried
Received on Wed Nov 18 09:29:32 1998