What is the binary form of 108

11 2. The genesis of binary coding in Luhmann's work If one looks at the concept of binary coding in Luhmann's work, it is noticeable that he uses this term to describe a specific structure that is of central importance in the course of his socio-theoretical elaborations. A closer analysis of the work that Luhmann has written on this topic should serve to trace both the systematic development of this term1 in earlier work and its function within Luhmann's social theory. The point is to reconstruct binary coding as a structure that every functional system must hold as an operational reference point for its differentiation. This also defines the reference for this investigation. It starts with the system reference society and tries, despite all the differences in the respective reference problems, to highlight structural features that all functional systems have as a comparison horizon. The aim is not to align the individual functional systems in the sense of an analytically clarifiable increase in adaptation, but to reconstruct those structural and semantic references that provide an indication of the minimum structural conditions that must be met by the binary coding of a functional system. It is about the conditio sine qua non and to that extent about the reconstruction of redundant distinctions that can be assumed for this work as conditions for the analysis of the system of patient treatment. This chapter will primarily deal with Luhmann's early writings and focus on binary coding as the central structure of both symbolically generalized communication media and functional systems of functionally differentiated society. In the following two chapters, we will firstly deal with the reconstruction of binary coding as the key difference between the functional systems of society and their specific modes of operation within the coding / programming distinction, and secondly, two of the functional systems, 1 The historical development of binary coding will be discussed with this Observer point of view not excluded; However, it is only illuminated if it makes a contribution to systematic differentiation. It therefore remains relevant for the present study, since earlier historical individual studies, which consider the binary codings exclusively as qualitative media codes, cannot be systematized without historical reference. THE GENESIS OF BINARY CODING AT THE LUHMANN'S WORK 12 “Economy” and “Science”, on which Luhmann carried out individual analyzes in addition to his social theory, 2 with regard to their systematic introduction of this form of coding. As already mentioned, it is not important here to emphasize all structural features of the binary coding in each functional system as being developed to the same extent, because this investigation, as required by Luhmann, remains open to evolutionary differences.3 Rather, the binary coding in its respective different Function-related modes of operation and consequently as a structure within a system-immanent reference horizon in order to be able to recognize both independence and dependencies on further reproductive conditions of the same system. In this way, in addition to the binary coding, additional relevant distinctions can be generated that play an important role for the autopoiesis of the systems and should therefore not be missing in the corresponding statements about the system of patient treatment.4 2.1 Coding and symbolically generalized communication media In Luhmann's early writings, Binary coding was introduced as a concept that structures symbolically generalized communication media. Adapted to the first elaborations on communication media, Luhmann uses the code term to explain those structures that go hand in hand with communication media such as power and love. Within this context, the concept of binary coding was not subjected to any clear definition by Luhmann in the 60s, 70s and early 80s. You can find the following different terms with him, for example: binary schemes, coding, media codes, binary codes.5 If one considers the for binary coding 2 See footnote 3, chapter 1 3 Cf. Luhmann, Niklas: Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main, 1997b, p. 359. 4 These include z. B. Function, symbiotic symbols, symbolically generalized communication medium, secondary coding, secondary codes. 5 See e.g. Luhmann, Niklas: Trust. 4th edition Lucius & Lucius: Stuttgart, 2000, p.118. First edition 1968; Luhmann, Niklas: Power. 3rd ed. Lucius & Lucius: Stuttgart, 2003a. First edition 1975, p. 31ff. and Luhmann, Niklas: "Introductory remarks on a theory of symbolically generalized communication media". In: ders .: Sociological Enlightenment 2. Essays on the theory of society. 5th edition. VS-Verlag: Wiesbaden, 2005, pp. 212-240. CODING AND COMMUNICATION MEDIA 13 relevant work at that time, then it is also noticeable that a clear theoretical-architectural definition of the terms mentioned cannot be carried out without further ado. Further discussions on the question of how the unity and the differences between the terms mentioned are to be understood are sometimes explicitly discussed6 or postponed in favor of preliminary work on the communication media.7 These points indicate that binary coding is not yet thematically in the The focus of his socio-theoretical investigation is. A differentiated analysis of binary coding as a structure of symbolically generalized communication media on the one hand and as a structure of modern functional systems on the other hand is not yet available there in this clarity.8 In order to approach a corresponding definition with reference to the early writings of Luhmann and possibly to highlight implicit but significant content can, it is necessary to show how Luhmann originally introduced and differentiated the 'binary schematizations' and 'codes' as structures in his texts. In addition to the relevant writings on power, love and trust, 9 the text "Introductory remarks on a theory of symbolically generalized communication media" shows how much Luhmann endeavors to deal with the concept of binary coding in a differentiated manner. Since Luhmann introduced binary coding from the beginning as a structure of the symbolically generalized communication media, it makes sense to preface the systematic development of binary coding in Luhmann's early work with a description of the function and the structural requirements of these media. 10 6 Cf. Luhmann, Niklas: Power, pp. 31–59. 7 See Luhmann, Niklas: Trust, p. 72 f. And p.118. 8 Even the very informative early article by Luhmann: Luhmann, Niklas: "Introductory remarks on a theory of symbolically generalized communication media" does not go beyond implicit assumptions. In Luhmann, for example, one looks in vain for an explicit discussion on the differentiation of ›media codes‹ and ›function codes‹ that goes beyond incomplete approximations, see Luhmann, Niklas: Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, p. 387ff. and note 296, p. 748. The relevance of such an explication should also be taken into account in the following. 9 See Luhmann, Niklas: Trust; Luhmann, Niklas: power and Luhmann, Niklas: love as passion. For coding intimacy. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main, 1982. 10 At this point I am primarily referring to Luhmann's remarks on symbolically generalized communication media in The Society of Society. The genetic consideration of the coding and media immediately following this will refer - without loss of consistency - to Luhmann's early writings on this subject. THE GENESIS OF BINARY CODING AT THE LUHMANN'S WORK 14 The theory of symbolically generalized communication media11 relates to the problem of the improbability of communication in a complex society. Behind this is the question of how it is even possible that communication continues in a differentiated society, although communication is a highly improbable operation and, taking into account the structural requirements, offers sufficient reason to refrain from continuing it.12 This circumstance will Once again potentiated by the fact that with the advent of writing, the communicative possibilities and thus also the possibilities of understanding and rejection probabilities of linguistic offers are enormously increased and are no longer automatically secured by the mechanisms of interaction, which are clearly disciplined in this regard. Communication media emerge as an answer to this problem as ancillary equipment to language. They presuppose their yes / no coding13 with the function of condensing accepted communication events and confirming their meaning for further communication in other situations, i.e. making them expectable14. The terms condensation / confirmation used here come from George Spencer-Brown's calculus15 11 Luhmann distinguishes between two types of communication media. 1.) Dissemination media and 2.) Success media. See Luhmann, Niklas: Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, p. 202ff. The dissemination media, e.g. B. Book printing, electronic media spread the circle of recipients who can be reached by speech. 2.) Success media means the symbolically generalized communication media, which I will deal with in more detail in the following. 12 I am referring here to the thresholds inherent in the concept of communication, which result from the system-theoretical distinction between information, communication and understanding. See Luhmann, Niklas: "The improbability of communication". In: ders .: Sociological Enlightenment 3. Social system, society, organization. 4th edition. VS-Verlag: Wiesbaden, 2005b, p. 30f. In relation to these three elements of communication, according to Luhmann, there are three thresholds of ›discouragement‹: 1.) the improbability of understanding, with non-identity of consciousness and constantly changing communication contexts. 2.) the improbability of reaching participants who are no longer automatically accessible via interaction. 3.) The success of the communication becomes unlikely to the extent that it increases the problem of understanding once more, because it is not certain that "the recipient accepts the selective content of the communication (the information) as the premise of his own behavior". 13 Cf. Luhmann, Niklas: Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, p. 316. 14 Cf. ibid. 15 Cf. Spencer-Brown, George: The laws of form. 2nd ed. Bohmeier Verlag: Lübeck, 1999. CODING AND COMMUNICATION MEDIA 15 and were introduced by Luhmann to sociological methodology.16 They relate to the examination of his concept of meaning and the question above, how it appears as the same despite changing situations in communication and with it Can provide term formations in the long term. Condensation then stands for the creation of identities within the recursive communication system, which requires that non-repeatable, cross-situation aspects of communication have to be omitted. The meaning condensed in this way then has to prove itself in other situations, that is, to confirm.17 This operating (communicating) systems of meaning make generalizations necessary, which are no longer clearly definable linguistically, but rather as "generalized meaning invariants [emphasis added. d. A.] «, which result from the interplay of condensation and confirmation and ultimately only depend on the system that uses these generalizations.18 The symmetrical distribution of opportunities for yes and no given by language is made possible by the symbolically generalized communication media eventually shifted more to the side of accepting communication; the original symmetry is asymmetrized. Luhmann already assumes in normal usage that "an accepted suggested meaning has a greater chance of being repeated than a rejected one." 19 An accepted suggested meaning has more chances of being adopted in other situations through further communication and thus generalizability to support communicative events.20 For, according to Luhmann, rejection only leads to specialized conflict systems or conflict management systems whose generalizability fails because the condensation, i.e. the formation of identities, is too strongly tied to the situations that create them and thus to possible topics of the Radically restrict communication. The acceptance of communications, on the other hand, gives rise to a "positive semantics of accepted sense" that matures more and more in this process of compression, reuse, and abstraction.21 The symbolically generalized communication media, such as money, truth, power, and love, can come as a result this process can be viewed.22 While language 16 See e.g. B. Luhmann, Niklas: Introduction to systems theory. Dirk Baecker (ed.). Third edition. Carl-Auer: Heidelberg, 2006a, p. 331ff .; Luhmann, Niklas: Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, p. 75. 17 Cf. ibid. 18 Cf. ibid. 19 Ibid., P. 316. 20 Cf. ibid., P. 316f. 21 Cf. ibid., P. 317. 22 Cf. ibid. THE GENESIS OF BINARY CODING IN THE LUHMANN'S WORK 16 However, if the problem of the improbability of communication is only structured in this way and the possibility of retrievable preference formations, the question arises as to how Symbolically generalized media on the level of society deal with communications that cannot be processed through concrete interactions, but instead increase the improbability of communication once again, for example in that in the scientific community they are first and foremost generated in the form of specific documents or publications have to deal successfully with improbable allegations.23 The functioning of successful media work runs here on the one hand through the generalizability of reusable identities in communication, which has already been explained, and on the other hand through the specific symbolizations of theirs introduced by the media Communication area. They are symbolic because they bridge differences, the unity of which they themselves represent. In this way, they equip communication with acceptance probabilities.24 In this way, improbable assertions can be successfully communicated using the medium of truth, since publications have to present themselves in a differentiated way with research. This distinction between research and publication then crystallizes, for example, the generalizations compatible with the medium of truth, which then condense and confirm to the expectations of the system. In other words: With the help of their symbolic generalizations, communication media manage to control distinguishable communications from an abstract point of view of matching against improbability. They coordinate selections, the linkability of which must be made under special conditions.25 In this sense, communications can be equipped with additional opportunities for acceptance if the conditions under which their selection takes place are known and are available for further access. Positive follow-up communication is therefore not an arbitrary undertaking, on the contrary: It is additionally encouraged by observing the appropriate conditioning.26 Luhmann illustrates these achievements using an example from the economic system: »Symbolically generalized media wonderfully transform no-probabilities into yes- Probabilities - for example: by making it possible to offer payment for goods or services that one would like to receive. "27 Cf. also ibid. 24 Cf. ibid., P. 319. 25 Cf. ibid. , P. 320. 26 Cf. ibid., P. 321. 27 Ibid., P. 320. CODING AND COMMUNICATION MEDIA 17 Suitability of goods or services is made subject to the condition of payment. Communication is established through transactions that bind both sides: those who pay and those who sell their goods and thus receive money at further disposal. Such transactions can be duplicated and conditioned under the premises of need satisfaction, demand and pricing, without being able to determine their content in advance in each individual case. If this communication medium is sufficiently differentiated, entire organizations and institutions can ultimately be adjusted to the mode of reproduction of a system that arises from it28 and at the same time become independent of the requirement that each individual communication must be accepted. Systems that secure their unity through symbolically generalized communication media show in this sense a certain negation tolerance with regard to individual, situation-dependent communications. If one considers the modes of operation of the symbolically generalized communication media described here, it is already apparent that although they remain accessible to a purely theoretical treatment of communication, 29 their differentiation simultaneously promotes corresponding system differentiations to which system-theoretical considerations can be linked.30 Luhmann's statement is in this sense to understand that “communication media ... are not the result of functional system differentiation, but rather catalysts for the differentiation of functional systems.” 31 The functionally differentiated society fulfills its most important functions in connection with different, symbolically generalized communication media, but it should be noted What remains is that media arise and can be differentiated before there are functional systems related to them.32 The decisive structures such as coding, programs and the special necessary for them In this way, emantics can already be provisionally prepared in the media, 33 so that they can then develop their mature form in connection with the functional systems of modern society. With regard to their function, symbolically generalized communication media are to condition selections and thereby at the same time. In: Journal of Sociology. 13, 4 (1984a), p. 319. 29 For such an attempt, see Baecker, Dirk: Form und Formen der Kommunikation. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main, 2007; especially p. 206ff. 30 Cf. Luhmann, Niklas: Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, pp. 204f. 31 Luhmann, Niklas: "The economy of society as an autopoietic system", p. 319. 32 Cf. Luhmann, Niklas: Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, p. 392. 33 Cf. ibid. THE GENESIS OF BINARY CODING IN THE LUHMANN'S WORK 18 zu motivate, equivalent. Luhmann now assumes that the differentiation of the media requires further forms, which then refer to the respective special problems of dealing with improbable communication.34 For this purpose, the specification and differentiation is coupled to certain alter / ego constellations and is based on a self-constituted duality which must take into account with each selection that it has to reckon with further selections.35 This self-referential system of original double contingency presupposes an ›immanent duality‹, which is designed in such a way that circular interruptions can occur.36 Alter and ego stand thus not for two entities that are independent of one another, which they can be natural for themselves, but for an interchangeable attribution constellation. The interruption of the circle makes itself dependent on an attributing observer who relates the observed behavior (attribution) to the environment.37 Luhmann now distinguishes between two types of attribution: the internal and the external.38 selections can either be attributed to the system itself or to the environment become. According to the elements of communication and the need to differentiate between information and communication, Luhmann couples the internal attribution to the reporting function of communication and relates this as an action to the system itself. In the case of external attribution, it is a matter of information formation, which is consequently attributed to the environment and the system can only be described as experiencing.39 Action and experience are simply implemented on the level of the elements of communication and thus enable every communication to always and at the same time bring both types of attribution into play. Alter can experience how ego acts or alter acts while ego observes experiencingly, etc. Action and experience can be attributed in different ways to the ›immanent duality‹ alter / ego. This results in distinguishable constellations, which must be assumed for the differentiation of different symbolically generalized communication media.40 Luhmann has developed the following table for this purpose: 41 34 Cf. ibid., P. 332. 35 Cf. ibid., P. 333. 36 Cf. ibid. 37 See ibid. 38 See ibid., p. 334. 39 See ibid., p. 335. 40 Cf. ibid. 41 See, for example, ibid., p. 336; Luhmann, Niklas: "Introductory Remarks", p. 219; Luhmann, Niklas: Love as Passion, p. 27; Luhmann, Niklas: "Scarcity, Money and Bourgeois Society". In: Yearbook for Social Science. 23 (1972a), p. 197. CODING AND COMMUNICATION MEDIA 19 Ego Alter Experience Action Experience Ae -> Ee Truth Values ​​Ae -> Eh Love Action Ah -> Ee Property / Money Art Ah ->