Social Systems Where is the Ground (original) (raw)

2020

Abstract

In this conversation, Weaver D.R. Weinbaum and Marta Lenartowicz discuss the paradigmatic limits to their argument that social systems are cognitive agents on their own. Integrating Niklas Luhmann's theory of social systems with Francisco Varela's enactive theory of cognition and Gilbert Simondon's theory of individuation Lenartowicz and Weinbaum have argued that the Luhmannian concept of social systems 'observing' their environment can be taken non-metaphorically albeit still in an abstract manner. While presenting this theory they were asked what would the 'physical substrate' of such cognitive agencies be. In their 'Thinking Studio' conversation held at the School of Thinking VUB they discuss what they understand as a profound presupposition carried by the above question: to be validly addressed by science, all phenomena must first be shown to be grounded in relation to a single fundamental layer of reality. Finding this paradigmatic presupposition problematic in relation to social systems, Weinbaum and Lenartowicz seek to demonstrate the case that different phenomenal domains may have different grounds which are not further reducible without losing their significance as a ground. The authors problematize the concept of ground, expose the difficulties it poses, and discursively construct an alternative conceptual framework in relation to which the initial question asked could be answered. Weinbaum and Lenartowicz propose a new understanding of the concept of ground which is relative rather than absolute and itself individuating rather than merely forming an a priori context for individuation. Specifically, they conclude that there is little point to ground social systems in a physical substrate. The notion of hierarchical construction 'from the ground up' is revised to accommodate individuating factors that operate 'top down' as well as 'across' diverse strata without a clear hierarchical distinction. The major consequence is proposing an alternative to the concept of ground as it is commonly applied, this in preparation for a more open-ended and less dogmatic scientific paradigm. The main line of argument analyses the concept of ground and asserts that understanding ground depends on the domain in which problems are described. Furthermore, the ground, far from being absolute is a product of individuation, that is a constructive process. This short volume contains a single 'Thinking Studio' conversation organised by the School of Thinking VUB at the Free University of Brussels.

Weaver D.R. Weinbaum hasn't uploaded this paper.

Let Weaver D.R. know you want this paper to be uploaded.

Ask for this paper to be uploaded.