Luhmann’s secret diamonds

New entries for the Zettelkasten

FULL TEXT
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Luhmanns Diamonds/Luhmanns Diamonds.pdf
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Luhmanns Diamonds/Luhmanns Diamonds.html

Abstract

A kind of a similarity between Luhmann’s concepts of sign, system, difference and re-entry and the main figures of diamond theory is observed.

1.2. Interpretation

It seems to be more fruitful today to thematize and formalize Luhmann’s distinctions with the help of diamond theory instead of the Calculus of Indication of George Spencer Brown.

A key notion in Niklas Zettelkasten, obviously, is self-reference.
The other crucial notion is the self-referential concept of difference.

With that all kind of connections to logical, methodological and epistemological considerations are provoked. A strange connection to Spencer-Brown was inaugurated, mainly by the influence of Heinz von Foerster. The re-entry figure became a machina creativa, albeit nobody had a training in formal languages at all.

Difference and relation; différance
But Luhmann’s work is about social theories and not about logic. Neither is Luhmann’s theory of social systems a semiotic or semiological theory. This point ios not yet well understood. Semiotics, but the french “sémiologie” too, are based on relations, triadic for semiotics and dyadic for semiology. But Luhmann’s concept of a self-referential and “therefore”, paradoxical concept of difference isn’t based on relations but on difference (Unterscheidung). Relations are presupposing difference, and are thus secondary to the paradox concept of difference. Relations are logical and not paradoxical.

Derrida has given strong deconstruction of the semiological and semiotic sign concept and its relational foundations in logocentrism. With his radicalized interpretation of de Saussure’s semiology, he transformed the concept of difference to the paradoxical non-concept of différance. The difference of the difference, the différance, is not in a relationship to relations.

Similar, Gotthard Gunther’s non-concept of proemial relationship.

Hence, Luhmann’s insistence on self-reference might well be reformulated in different ways. One, which I proposed for many years, is interpreting self-reference and its circularity in the framework of a polycontextural understanding of chiasms, i.e., technically, as proemial relationships.

Now, after this chiastic theory got some maturity, albeit not much recognition, it is time to introduce the diamond approach to difference and circularity of system and environment . Diamond strategies are a further radicalization of the earlier approach of polycontextural chiasm.

Also Luhmann’s work is not well known in the Anglo-Saxon world, it isn’t a wrong feeling to observe that also the themes and topics, and their highly reflected treatment by Luhmann, has no real existence in the world-leading sociological literature of the super-power theoreticians.

2. Supplementing the Zettelkasten

It doesn’t seem too risky to risk an interpretation of Luhmann’s theoretizations out-side or beyond second-order cybernetic figures and metaphors.
In other words, is there a strict necessity to understand Luhmann’s adventure in terms of his entries of his own Zettelkasten?
Is it possible to ‘re-construct’ his constructivism and re-enter into it without its terminology and jargon of difference, distinctions, re-entry and self-referentiality?
Luhmann’s theory is self-referential, thus it could refer to itself in different terminological modi, and still keeping its adventures strategies and networks of constructing a de/constructive theory of social systems alive.

Hence, I will take the risk to supplement the Zettelkasten by smuggeling some non-contents of diamond boxes into this, now electronic, Zettelkasten.

By re-reading the passage with its introduction of the difference of system and environment, I think that I’m observing, or as I prefere to say, hallucinating some features not yet been recognized and mentioned, neither explicitly by Luhmann nor by his followers.

Self-referentiality without referentiality?

The rhetoric figures of Luhmann’s texts are not necessarily determined by the frameworks of the used technical weaponry. The cage of the jargon is not necessarily incarcerating the dynamics of the gesture.

Technically, I try to understand Luhmann’s theory of social systems from the viewpoint of polycontextural and diamond systems. Hence, I try to avoid to go into the litany of second-order cybernetics, systems theory and Spencer-Brown’s Calculus of Indication and its extensions.
Even more technically, my interpretation of Luhmann’s gestures with the introduction of his rhetoric figures is due to a morphogrammatic subversion, abandoning any jargon and terminological content, as crucial as it might be, and conceiving the dynamics of the pattern, only.

After this new diamond approach is introduced, experienced and further developed, a renewed lecture of Luhmann’s work as involved with the above mentioned second-order trends, might happen again.

The term “diamond” refers to itself, only. There is no reference to exposed marketing labels necessary.

2.2. Uncovering Luhmann’s diamonds

Statement
"When a communication constitutes a previous communication as a communication, it simultaneously distinguishes it from all those other things in the world that are not communication. In this sense, all operations of autopoietic systems always constitute the difference between the system and its environment

How can this happen? If an operation of an autopoietic systems is producing by its action, i.e. operation, both, the intended operation and at the same time, the operation of distinguishing the system of the first operation from its environment, then it “constitute[s] the dfference between the system and its environment”. How is an autopoietic operation simultaneously operating in its domain (system) and producing an environment of the domain? Or in other words, how is an operation operating that it is able to operate and thereby by such operation constituting (operating) its own environment?

The first answer, which might be given by Luhmann is the hint to Spencer Brown’s Calculus of Indication: “Draw a distinction!” With this distinction, the ‘world’ is ‘divided’, i.e. ‘distinguished’ into two parts, the inside and the outside of the ‘world’ or ‘space’.
But what is given by the CI? Two ‘equations'.
In this formulation, no world appears. The world or space is presuposed and realized by a sheet of paper or another medium of inscription. This might be interpreted cognitively by a user of the CI. And this interpretation will become a meta-theoretical environment of the calculus. But nevertheless no part of the calculus in question.

Again, "When a communication constitutes a previous communication as a communication, it simultaneously distinguishes it from all those other thing in the world that are not communication.”

Interpretation
"When a communication constitutes a previous communication as a communication"
This is involving several procedures:
1. "communication constitutes a previous communication", this might be naturally understood as a composition of two communications.
2. "as a communication” means, that the composition has to be realized as a composition of communications and nothing else. But this condition is exactly what is called the ‘matching conditions for compositions'.
4. With this formulation we get a clue to understand what could be meant by the consequence: “it simultaneously distinguishes it from all those other thing in the world that are not communication."
This consequence of the composition of communications is following consecutively the ‘assumption' of the operation of composition albeit it states its simultaneity.

Diamondization
Luhmann’s communicational statement, the ‘axiom’ of communication, interpreted as a categorical composition of communications offers a natural introduction of the otherness of communication, i.e. the simultaneous environment of communication by the saltatorical hetero-morphisms.
It needs two communications to realize communication and its environment as the singular otherness of communication. This asymmetry is directly covered by the saltatories od diamond theory, which are complementary to the categories of communication.

Because of the operativity of the diamond interpretation of Luhmann’s conception of communication, communication might now be studied operatively on all levels of complexity and complication necessary, together with their interplay.

This diamond interpretation is not reducible to the indicational calculus and its use for autopoietic and communicational systems.

Again, what are the conditions for communication? Communications have to be “anschlussfähig”, i.e. they have to fulfil the conditions of connectivity.
In category and diamond theory, such conditions are exactly the matching conditions of composition.

Now, there are two possibilities opened up.
One insists that the conditions of the possibility of something are not identical with such a conditional something.
The other position could take a highly formalistic turn towards self-referentiality and postulate that there is no logical difference between the conditions of something and such a something.
Without doubt, the latter position leads quite directly to logical paradoxes. But who cares?
Why should we use logic? And which logic anyway?
It also could be mentioned that the comparison itself is too much restricted by logic and alternativity.

The first position sounds harmless if we take the statement in a hierarchical way, i.e. if we postulate a sequential order between the conditions and the entity. But why should we accept this decision as the only working possibility?
The diamond approach, obviously is postulating a simultaneity of both thematizations, the conditions of the possibility and the characteristics of the entity.

It might be a question of taste which of both positions has to be considered as more crazy: the ultra-formalistic or the diamond approach.

Re-entry and in-sourcing
``To cope with these consequences of a re-entry of the internal/external difference in itself, the system needs and constructs time.” (Luhmann)

Again, in-sourcing:
"The idea of in-sourcing the matching conditions into the definition of diamonds seems to be in correspondence with the two main postulates of "Chinese Ontology", i.e., the permanent change of things and the finiteness or closeness of situations. That is, diamonds should be designed as structural explications of the happenstance of compositions and not as a succession of events (morphisms)."

The figure of re-entry tries to correspond to the device to include “the internal/external difference in itself”. This happens in “consequences” and needs/constructs time.
Hence, the idea of a simultaneous realization of the difference of system and its environment gets lost in the infinit delirium of self-reference.

In-sourcing the matching conditions of composition is a finite and simultaneous constellation of categories and saltatories. It is the interplay of both, categories and saltatories of a diamond constellation, which is realizing the figure of re-entry in a finit and differential manner.
Both strategies, the re-entry and the in-sourcing, seems to correspond to a similar gesture.

FULL TEXT
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Luhmanns Diamonds/Luhmanns Diamonds.pdf
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Luhmanns Diamonds/Luhmanns Diamonds.html

The Chinese Challenge-华文?谁怕谁!

推广华语理事会推出崭新的活动《华文?谁怕谁!》，让华族新加坡人和永久居民，通过有趣的问答游戏，感受中华文化的博大精深，深化对华文华语的认识，并进一步提升华语掌握能力。

The Chinese Challenge

"The Promote Mandarin Council has launched an exciting new initiative, The Chinese Challenge, to encourage Singaporeans and Permanent Residents to enjoy and improve their Mandarin and deepen their knowledge of Chinese culture through experiencing the finest in Chinese culture and language."

http://www.thechinesechallenge.sg/

"If we can raise the level of Chinese language and appreciation of Chinese culture, it could have an indirect impact on our economy in the future,' he said."

http://www.straitstimes.com/

The Chinese Challenge

中国挑战

The Chinese Challenge: Hallucinations for Other Futures

What can we learn from China that China is not teaching us?

It is the paradigm of writing on which main cultures are depending. Their kind of rationality, their efficiency of technology, the way they organize society and communication, arts and sciences, all are not to separate from their paradigm of writing. How people are involved in writing and scriptural practice is enabling their possibility of thinking and living. Main cultures always depend on their paradigm of writing. Writing in general is the most abstract mechanism and technology of cultural, political and technological formations.

中 国对西方的挑战不是经济的、也不是政治的或者军事的；苏醒的技术中国和经济中国这个事件并不构成对西方的所谓的"大挑战"，真正的挑战是重新发现她的文字 系统，并设计出新的理性形式系统，就像创造新的数学和新的编程语言一样；是面对一个崛起的中国我们是否做好了充分的准备。

The Chinese Challenge to the West is not economical, political or military. It is not the event of a re-awakening economic and technological China which is the Grand Challenge to the West but the possible re-discovery of the operationality of its writing system for the design of new rational
formal systems, like new mathematics and new programming languages

http://www.thinkartlab.com/CCR/2006_08_01_rudys-chinese-challenge_archive.htm

Text in Chinese

http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/The Chinese Challenge-CN.pdf

Video Chinese&English

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCNcFmPl-9E

Xanadu's textems

Diamond theoretical reflections on hypertextuality

FULL TEXT
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/lola/Xanadu-textemes/Xanadu-textemes.pdf


Abstract
Xanadu is still not yet realized. Nevertheless, it is appropriate, not only to understand its principles and its radical difference to established Web hypertext and multimedia, but to try to think and design even more advanced concepts of non-traditional interactions. One interesting extension of identity-oriented thematizations is opened up by polycontextural, kenogrammatic and diamond approaches to text theory; proposed recently as textems or textemes. Textemes are based on the interplay of anchored semiotic diamonds and are delivering necessary environments for transclusions. Transclusions and transjunctions are modeled additionally in a polycontextural setting. The characteristics of ‘electronic’ text in contrast to ‘physical’ paper texts are emphasized.

1.1. Hyper-textuality

Since some decades, everybody knows Xanadu and nearly nobody ever has seen it working.

Most people think of it as a special kind of a hypertext project with two-way links and connected with projects like Hypercard. Hence, the focus is on the machinery of links.

Personally I had a similar perception and therefore wasn’t specially interested in it.
But there is a very crucial distinction at place which makes a profound difference to all kind of linking systems. It is Nelson’s insistence on the difference of ‘physical’ and ‘electronic’ documents. At the first glance this seems to be obvious and trivial too, but it isn’t at all.

There is a lot of postmodern writing about the virtuality and simulacrum of electronic media. Nevertheless I couldn’t find any conceptually and technically useful elaborations.

With such a change, from the ‘physical to the ‘electronic’ , in the ontological and epistemological status of documents and texts, the whole topic of links (transclusions, deep links, content links, etc.) appears as a ‘natural’ consequence of the new understanding of text ('electronic’., digital’, ‘virtual').

1.1.1 Ted Nelson’s Xanadu

"To Project Xanadu, that means enacting two types of connection: profuse and unbreakable *deep links* to embody the arbitrary connections that may be made by many authors throughout the world (content links); and *a system of visible, principled re-use*, showing the origins and context of quotations, excerpts and anthologized materials, and content transiting between versions (transclusions).

This may be simplified to: connections between things which are *different*, and connections between things which are *the same*. They must be implemented differently and orthogonally, in order that linked materials may be transcluded and vice versa. This double structure of abstracted literary connection -- *content links* and *transclusion* -- constitute xanalogical structure."

Transclusion
"Transclusion is what quotation, copying and cross-referencing merely attempt: they are ways that people have had to *imitate* transclusion, which is the true abstract relationship that paper cannot show. Transclusions are not copies and they are not instances, but *the same thing knowably and visibly in more than once place*. This is a simple point which is remarkably difficult to get across. While copies and cross-reference are workarounds in place of transclusion, aliases and caches are *forms* of transclusion."

Text is not simply text
"Nelson always meant hypermedia when he said hypertext, it's one of the things that people get wrong about Nelson. They think that they've invented hypermedia and he only invented hypertext. He meant 'text' in the sense of corpus, not text in the sense of characters. I know this for a fact because we've talked about it many times (van Dam 1999, interview)."

Hypertextuality in the sense of the Web and its WEB-0.X-mythology, is restricted to a unidirectional exchange of signs as data without environments. Web links are not only uni-directional by definition but they have only two logical states: broken/unbroken.

It would by great to enjoy a more dynamic bi-directional Web connectivity in the sense of transclusions (Ted Nelson). But Xanadu links are postulated as UNBREAKABLE. Does it matter if they are one- or two-way links if they are not qualified to perish? http://www.xanadu.com/xuTheModel/

What’s an ‘electronic’ text?

It isn’t easy to characterize properly ‘electronic’ or ‘digital’ texts and documents in the sense of Nelson’s intentions.

One hint is given by the distinction of “same” and “different” instead of ‘equal’ and ‘unequal’.

” ... connections between things which are *different*, and connections between things which are *the same*."

A further hint to the different epistemological character of ‘electronic’ texts is given by the necessity of ‘orthogonal’ structures.
"They must be implemented differently and orthogonally, in order that linked materials may be transcluded and vice versa.”

Furthermore, ‘electronic’ texts are charactericed by a complementarity of polar distinctions, i.e. by a double structure of ‘content links’ and ‘transclusions’.
"This double structure of abstracted literary connection -- *content links* and *transclusion* -- constitute xanalogical structure."

Some more distinctions might help to grasp the specific character of ‘electronic’ texts.

1. The mainstream understanding of text is still dominated by the sentence-model. A text is a composition of sentences (phrases, statements, etc.). A sentence is ideally a well-formed statement with a clear meaning.

2. Hypertext in the mainstream understanding is a text of a text. As a meta-level, a markup language is constructed to link textual elements of the primary text.

"In a classical node-link hypertext, a graph can be constructed on the set of nodes where each edge is identified with a link and structure discussions typically take place with respect to this graph.” (Neumuller, p.89)

”The Web link is in essence little more than a goto or a jump instruction to the Web browser to retrieve and display a new document.” (ibd., p. 149)

3. And to give the whole thing some meaning, a markup language of a markup language of the ordinary text is introduced. This is the concept of text in an ontology-based Semantic Web.

4. Nelson’s Docuverse, "deep electronic literature”, virtual documents

”...transclusions are hard to formalize in graph theory: are they nodes themselves? If they are, they would transform trees into directed graphs. I have included them in this section, as they seem to mark a breakpoint of graph theory.” (ibd., p.90)

The same at different places, without ‘physical’ representation by copy-and-paste.

"Transclusions are not copies and they are not instances, but ‘the same thing knowably and visibly in more than one place’.” (Nelson)

Key Concepts
• Parallel Documents
• The Big three : Transpointing, Transclusion and Transcopyright.
• Transpublishing.

Hence a further aspect of the epistemology of ‘electronic’ texts is the fact that they have to be placed, that they have to take place in a textual space. There is no such thing in classical text theory as a textual place or locus. This shouldn’t be confused with the triviality that in classical text theory all kinds of topologies, hodologies and super-graphs might be used to explain, model and formalize classical texts as complex objects.

FULL TEXT
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/lola/Xanadu-textemes/Xanadu-textemes.pdf

Diamond Text Theory

From signs to textems

FULL TEXT
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Textems/Textems.pdf
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Textems/Textems.html


"From signs to textems” is sketching the basic constituents for an intertextual theory of texts, based on the diamond concepts of bi-signs and textems.
Applications to inter/intra/trans- and hypertextuality (Xanadu) are sketched.

Some remarks about the relationship between semiotics and Gunther’s place-valued logic in the 70s are added.

1.2 Inter/intra/trans- and hyper-textuality

1.2.1 Signs and environments

Text theory seems to be fundamental for any media and cultural theory.


But classical, modern and post-modern studies of intertextuality in general is restricted mainly to a semantic or pragmatic level, concerning the intertextuality of meaning as an interaction of different texts, discourses and stratagemes in translation, interpretation or reconstruction of what happened anyway.



Poetic, evocative, propagandistic and prophetic modi, transformed by post-scientific writing, are taboo to the enlightened elite.



The basic semiotic system of whatever color is presupposed by such highly propagandistic and delirious and post-technological SiFI-fantasy and are not by themselves involved into the interaction of intertextuality in general.


It is understood that there is no semiotic theory of sign systems which is reflecting inner and outer environments of basic signs as a constitutive part of the definition of signs.



The literate reader of postmodern education will know very well that he will fail to answer a single question about how his or hers pragmatistic, interactive, discourse driven, multimedial, deconstructivist, quantum-inspired dialogism (and much more) is working. 



The laconism to write of/on signs and their paradoxical subversions is not generating jobs.



Therefore, a first step to a general theory of interactional semiotics on the base of the new concept of textems, i.e. bi-sign systems or anchored diamonds, consisting of the semiotic intra-kernel and the semiotic internal/external environments, and its interplay, is proposed.

1.4.4 Conceptual graph for two bi-signs building a textem

A textem consist of two diamondized anchord signs, i.e. bi-signs, inter-playing together by their mediated external environments.

Hence, a textem is an interplay of two bi-signs.
A bi-sign is a diamondized anchord sign, i.e. a sign with intrinsic environments and its anchors. 



This is a kind of botton up introduction. Because we know signs and have not yet experienced textems, this way of building up textems is legitimate.

But nevertheless, it works only because we know how to construct textems out of signs which are not able to offer any of the principles of textems, which are needed to realize such a construction, like their chiastic interplay between the environments of signs, the environments of signs and the anchoring of signs.



As we no well enough, signs lack environments, there is no chance to construct out of signs inn sign-theoretical sense a semiotic environment of the sign conception.

And obviously, there is no such mechanism as a chiasm in the sense of proemiality for signs. Hence, neither environments, internal and external, nor interactions between signs based on their environments are conceivable.



Therefore, as a consequence, there is no such thing as a reduction mechanism for textems, which is reducing without loss, textems to signs.

On the other hand, after the intuition of textems is introduced, formalized and implemented, reductions are naturally available.
 


Hence:

A textem is reducible to its interacting bi-signs by excluding its chiastic interactivity. 
A semiotic diamond is a bi-sign, de-rooted from its anchor.

A single bi-sign is disconnected from its neighbor bi-sign, hence it is a bi-sign without interaction but realizing an anchored semiotic diamond with its isolated, and hence restricted, environment. 

A sign is a semiotic diamond, depraved from its environment.


FULL TEXT
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Textems/Textems.pdf
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Textems/Textems.html

Category Glue II

FULL TEXT
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/lola/Category Glue II/Category Glue II.html


Part II:
How to get rid of glue? From gluing to jumping. A new abstraction, the as-abstraction, and a subversion, the morpho-abstraction, has to be risked to avoid the complicity of category theory with the unavoidable exploitation of (conceptual) resources by the Western approach to interaction and communication in computer science.

To overcome the limitations of the category “glue”, contexturalization and mediation in a chiastic and diamond framework has to be elaborated and achieved to create chances to surpass and subvert such cultural and technological limitations.

http://cartoonbox.slate.com/hottopic/?image=8&topicid=114

Content

Category Glue II

1. Diamond theory of interactivity

1.1. Buffering super glue

1.1.1. Gluing information

1.1.2. Circularity of buffering information

1.2. Streching super glue

1.2.1. Horizontally: Meta-pattern

1.2.2. Pfalzgraf’s Fibered Glue

1.2.3. What are the aims of glued interactions?

1.3. Inhaling glue

2. Getting rid of glue

2.1. Interfaces

2.1.1. Interfaces as mutual representation

2.1.2. Polycontextural approach

2.2. Diamond modeling

2.2.1. General strategies

2.2.2. Categorical composition

2.2.3. Dissemination

2.2.4. Chiasm

2.2.5. Diamondization

2.3. Sketch of formal chiastic and diamond modeling

2.4. Costs and resources

2.4.1. Conceptual analysis

2.4.2. Concept tree analysis

The Logic of the Bailout Strategy

The end of capitalism or the end of the state?

FULL TEXT:
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Bailout Strategies/Bailout Strategies.html
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Bailout Strategies/Bailout Strategies.pdf


2. Bailout logic

"In economics, a bailout is an act of loaning or giving capital to a failing business in order to save it from bankruptcy, insolvency, or total liquidation and ruin.”²

Detailed material and description about the complex aspects of the USA bailout is summarized at Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008.³ Or watch the video:Why Wont The Bail Out Work? ⁴

There are funny discussions about the nature, probably it is better to call it, the ideology and stratagemes, of what’s going on today in the economic world.

The funniest chapter is the emergence of an ever growing debate about the transformation of the relationship between capital, economy, market and state, governments, administrations, bureaucracy.

Things are not as funny as they could be. The biggest economic crises since the last big crash is producing serious global poverty and will become a good reason for further wars.

What’s annoying me is that the same stupidity of our ruler and their academic adviser is going on without any interruption or critical reflection on what happened and is still happening.
The same politicians and Nobel Prize Winners are on the floor.

Do we have to enter this debate?

There is no need to get messed up about their opinions.
It seems to be good enough to think about the most simple structure of the whole manoeuvre to understand its logic and strategy.

http://cartoonbox.slate.com/hottopic/?image=23&topicid=279

The state, of whatever governmental form, from the Swiss democracy to Gordon Brown’s British parliament, the USA to China, the state is asked for or is offering a bail-out of companies, corporations, institutions which are running into bankruptcy.

The bail-out is paid by so called tax payers money. Hence, the state will take over such companies to some degree in ownership and regulations. It is seen as a reversal of the process of privatization. Some, are happy to interpret it as the symptoms of the end of capitalism.

There are others, not many, for good reasons, which are more cynical and are understanding the bail-out manoeuvre of the state as a coup of the capital to overtake the state with its tax payer's money and its power of regulation.

This position in the debate is still hidden in the background. It would be too dangerous to defend such a complementary position explicitly and with the proper intensity.

It is said that the state will take shares of the companies and will use more control over them. Does it matter? There will be bankers and managers from the side of the capital which will enter the save heaven of governmental offices to do the job. Hence, the capitalist bankers are becoming administrators and the governmental administrators are becoming bankers.

The governmental bankers, which had been in charge to control the capitalist banks, are as much involved in the crash as their colleagues from the so called private sector.

Both positions of the debate, surely, are demanding for themselves unique truth of their interpretations. Only debaters with some secured positions are liberal or tolerant enough to accept, at least, the existence and relative reasonability of the complementary position. But that doesn’t matter, now.

Hence, we are at the beginning, again. The crisis is declared as much too serious to allow the luxury of philosophical reflections and distinctions and is only weakening, argumentatively, the severity of the global situation.

In fact, there is, up to now, no debate at all. The opposite position to ones position in this virtual debate is declared as mislead and for empirical and logical reasons as wrong.

It is still the dominating position that the government has to save the failing industries (banks, car, insurance, etc.) with the help of bailout strategies.

The government declare, it will use the tax payers money properly, fulfilling highest standards of economical thinking and ethics.

It doesn’t matter, where the money is from, directly from the national tax payer or indirectly, via China e.g. The government wasn’t elected to spend this money especially for bailouts, anyway.

Is the tax payers money private or public?
Is a tax payer private? What happens if the so called worker is his own capitalist? A shareholder of “his” company for which he is now on the way to pay his bailout with the generous help of the government? And the capitalist, e.g. the manager his own (self-)exploiter?

Hence, the tax payer is paying the bailout of his company where he is a shareholder and a worker at once, which makes him a owner of the company, which is, together with him, on the way to bankruptcy. This surely has to be prevented, otherwise the tax payer gets unemployed and is losing his status as a shareholder of his company.

It also has to be prevented because the tax payer could start a rebellion against the whole system, paid on the base of his private money he put aside. But how and where?

There are no capitalists nor workers, anymore. Both are intertwined into the complex reality of globalization and the self-exploitation by anonymous corporations.

That is, public money from the private tax payer has to save the private company owned by the capital. The state wants to become a part-owner of the capital with the money of the private shareholders of the company.

The mission is to save employment for the private shareholders.
This sounds humanitarian and is in harmony with a progressive protestant work ethic.

But this is only one side of the coin.

Is it not better for the public capital and the markets to get as much capital by the state’s private capital to be fit to survive against the consequences of mismanagement and global competition?

In fact, and this will become, in the future, more and more obvious , the capital has to be made fit against the cultural limitations of Western science and technology and their decline.

The so called nationalization of markets is in fact a disguised overtaking of the state by the capital.

The state, complementary, is hallucinating a control and annexation of the markets and the capital. He wants to become owner of the banks, etc.

The bailout ‘’Promotes centralized bureaucracy by allowing government powers to choose the terms of the bailout.‘’ (WiKi)

The state is playing the rescuer of the markets to save its own existence.
The capital is overtaking in disguise the state to save its own existence.

Therefore, the whole bailout saga is a secret coup:
coup d'´etat and coup de capitale.

The common of both is the commotion and the threat of their proper existence.
Both forms of existence are fundamentally out of date and obsolete.

The epistemological problem is:
The (bailout) situation is polycontextural and self-referential, and our mathematical and computational paradigms, ideologies and tools are mono-contextural and linear.

[...]

3.2. Blending of bailout

The blending interpretation of the bailout is blinding for the fact that the emergent features of whatever mélange between capital and state has first to be generated and paid.

But a blending approach,with its undecided mix, is best prepared to offer the necessary structural vagueness and non-transparency for ever growing new departments in the opacity of both administrations, the state and the capital.

http://markturner.org/blending.html

3.3. Chiasm of bailout

Inter-dependencies of both, capital and state, still intertwined and reciprocatively dependent, but at least a holistic and processual conceptualization and understanding of the mechanism is uncovered and conceived by the chiastic thematization of the bailout..

The chiastic approach of the bailout is emphasizing the complicity of both movements, the privatization and the nationalization, as belonging to the same reality.⁵

Hence, any controversial debate, like with the logical, contradictorily or antagonistic, modeling, which is understanding the parts as singular or in a reflective turn as dual, is obsolete within the chiastic understanding.

What has to be studied is the inter-relational complicity of both interpretations, their chiastic relationality, like the coincidence and exchange relations. To function as a whole of interdependency, the exchange relations between the opposite, but common terms have to be adapted by the coincidence relations between the similar but distributed terms.

The dualistic interpretation of the situation is conflictive and is not offering a tribune for negotiation. One, and only one interpretation is accepted by the defenders as adequate and true. On the base of such blindness, only ethical and moralizing judgements and the cry for more interventional actions are available.

The chiastic interpretation is offering an insight into the very mechanism of the conflictive situations. The mediating contextures of the chiasm is placing the structural possibility of negotiation and resolution, albeit inside of the framework of the scenario.

Both positions, the dualistic and the chiastic, are accepting the situation as it is. This is reasonable for descriptive and analytical motives. Despite its non-classical conceptuality, the chiastic model is not yet offering any structural strategies to overcome and reject the structural fundaments of the whole situation.

As a result, a kind of a humanitarian harmony of the antagonism remains as the ultimate aim. This solution of the problem is guaranteeing a safe return of the problem on a new, more complex and reflected level of development, securing an even deeper and broader stage-management of the “eternal recurrence” of booms, bubbles and crashes.

3.4. Diamond of bailout

The diamond approach is not denying the correctness of the chiastic modeling of the antagonistic situation but is trying to reject the whole construction in favor of a future-oriented transformation, where the components or “objects” of the chiasm, state and capital, are dissolved.

The diamond approach, with its complementarity of acceptional and rejectional thematizations, is separating the antagonistic aspects from their intertwining complicity. Both are conceived as autonomous societal movements, crossing at some parts, historically, and disappearing into other situational interactions.

Their complicity is historic and there is no necessity to reduce social life to it.

Because of the autonomic interplay between acceptional tendencies, framed by categories and rejectional tendencies, framed by saltatories, a chance to separate both structurations (of societal structures and movements) is conceived and accessible to realize.

3.5. The bailout of the bailout

Rejection of the figure of bailouts by dissemination and subversion.

The bailout of banks and industries by the governments is a big sandbox game: moving money, power and control from one societal heap to another societal heap of a national and/or global economy framed by the opposition of capital and state.

3.5.1. Dissemination: Polycontexturality of society

Polycontexturality of society is dissolving such terminological identifications like ‘state’ and ‘capital‘. Terms, like ‘state’ and ‘capital’, are not observer-independent identifications, like ‘potato’ or ‘herring’, which in fact are neither. They are depending on observations and are set into multiple perspectives, which are dissolving their a-historical and nominalistic identity.

Polycontextural logics are prepared to describe, formalize and implement such complexities in an adequate way.

Gunther Teubner is describing the challenges for law and society and its understanding by polycontextural thematizations.

"In Habermas’ “ideal speech situation”, formal procedures are supposed to guarantee the undistorted reciprocal expression of individual interests as well as their universalization into morally just norms. However, polycontexturality, one of the most disturbing experiences of our times, thoroughly discredits these recent variations of a Kantian concept of justice.

"With polycontexturality understood as the emergence of highly fragmented intermediary social structures based on binary distinctions, society can no longer be thought of as directly resulting from individual interactions, and justice can no longer be plausibly based on universalizing the principle of reciprocity between individuals.”

"In these perspectives, irreconcilable incompatibilities result from colliding social practices each of them endowed with their own rationality and normativity and with an enormous potential for mutually-inflicted damage.

The highest degree of abstraction has been reached by Gotthard Günther who radicalizes polycentricity into a more threatening polycontexturality, that is, a plurality of mutually exclusive perspectives which are constituted by binary distinctions. They are not compatible with one another and can be overcome only by rejection values which in their turn lead to nothing but to different binary distinctions.” (Teubner, p. 4/5)⁶

3.5.2. Subversion: Morphogrammatics of sociality

A morphogrammatic subversion of the understanding of society is rejecting their leading concepts and models of monetary and phono-logical interpretations.
Subversion, hence is not rejection “which in their turn lead to nothing but to different binary distinctions.” Binary distinctions discovered by rejections are establishing, again, contextures albeit new ones, and thus there is, in this strategy, no escape and nothing left except of contextures, and contextures of contextures.

There is not much to tell about such a morphogrammatic turn or abstraction, i.e. subversion, and it is hard to write and to inscribe how to subvert the surface structures of society to ‘enlight’ its hidden actional structuration by morphogrammatics.

Morphogrammatics is abstracting even from “the highest abstraction” (Teubner) of the contextures of polycontexturality.

To try it with metaphors, it seems to be reasonable, in what ever logic or rationality, that contextures too, are taking place, are positioned and localized, where?, in a kind of space(s). Such a space might be called an inscriptional space or even more metaphorically a (meta-/proto)conceptual space, giving space and loci for éspacement (spacing) and temporalisiation of positioned contextures and their interplay. Such a space is empty of all kinds of conceptual characterizations but it is nevertheless not a vague void, but structured, organized, beyond the dictatorship of order and chaos, axioms and rules.

That bailouts for state and capital can happen in a specific societal space, which has to be spaced and temporalized by actions and activities before/after capital and state can happen on/off historical stage of history, bailouts to save living space and future(s) have to be discovered and invented beyond state and capital.

Without fundamental change(s) nothing will be changed for the future.

FULL TEXT:
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Bailout Strategies/Bailout Strategies.html
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Bailout Strategies/Bailout Strategies.pdf