Explain this table
It means “chance,” “contingency,” “uncertainty,” “accident,” etc. It can also mean “It also means “to depend on.
“Contingency theory” is a Japanese term that translates to “environmental adaptation theory. This theory states that there are various environments in the world, and since there is no single best system, the system should change as the environment changes.
This is equivalent to “double conditional dependence.”
To make a choice is a negation of the potential that could have been otherwise, and in that sense is a double negation. By experiencing the other as another self that is opaque to oneself, the potential denied in choice is preserved and stabilized as a mutually implied, but unrealized, possibility in both oneself and the other. Luhmann called this situation a double contingency.
|7||cause and effect||cycle|
|8||finite (time)||infinity (space)|
|20||until the end(until you finish)||as (much) as possible|
|21||theory of relativity||quantum mechanics|
|22||particle(quantum mechanics)||wave(quantum mechanics)|
(Approach from the nature side)
(approach from the human side)
|27||(memory) self-awareness||(power of) imagination|
|30||(past to present) ever||(from present to future) from now on|
Before explaining this table, let me briefly explain “What is a system?” I have used the information from the Web site as a reference.
For example, social systems theory is a theory that attempts to read society from a systems perspective. It assumes that a system is a cohesion or set, or “collection,” and that the elements, such as parts or components, that make it up are related to each other and fulfill some function. The function of a system is more than the sum of the functions of its individual elements. The effect resulting from the interaction between the elements of the system is called the “emergent effect.”
Because the concept of “system” is so general, it is possible to categorize and integrate the various sciences from a systems perspective, focusing on the isomorphism of models handled by the various sciences. This is systems thinking, and in the 1950s, systems theory, which focuses on the commonalities among the various sciences, emerged in a clear form.
There are many different types of systems. For example, there are systems composed of matter, such as machines, and organic biological systems, such as animals. There are also abstract systems whose elements are concepts, letters, mathematical formulas, etc. The human being, the subject of psychology, can be thought of as a single system. This system is not closed, but is an open system that interacts with other human beings. Similarly, organizations and cultures are systems. Even in more basic psychological functions, such as perception, wholeness is an important determinant, as Gestalt psychology, a psychology that focuses on the wholeness and structure of the human psyche rather than on a collection of parts or elements, points out. This integrative outlook also allows psychology to directly introduce models from other disciplines and to hint at missing areas for theory completion.
The theory of systems is the first theory in human history in which the concept of a system appeared in its complete form. However, the concept of system did not suddenly appear without any foundation. Even before systems theory was proposed, there had been ongoing discussions over the centuries that led to systems, such as the conflict between vitalism and mechanism.
Before the 19th century, the various fields that were the prerequisites for extracting systems were underdeveloped, and it was not possible to extract and explain systems in a complete form from various fields. Therefore, various explanations of wholeness were regarded as metaphysics, and the stronghold of elemental reductionism could not be broken.
Now, the latest systems theory, autopoiesis, was proposed in the early 1970s by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. It was intended to ask the essential question, “What is the organic composition of life?” It is said to be a theory that can even refer to how life is generated, autonomously.
Autopoiesis is said to be a system theory that can explain even the subjective world, and has succeeded in breaking through the limits of system theory up to “self-organization,” which is difficult to refer to the autonomy of life. Focusing particularly on the metabolic and nervous systems of cells, they have incorporated the essential properties of the system itself as a system that transcends material types, including circular organization and the ability to determine its boundaries by itself. Today, as a concept that can describe such self-referential and self-determining systems, it has been applied to a variety of fields beyond its original biological subject. Because of its cutting-edge nature, there is no unified view of auto-poiesis in the academic world, and discussions are based on a variety of interpretations. The term autopoiesis is a Greek word coined from the Greek words “auto” meaning self and “poiesis” meaning production, production, or creation.
Niklas Luhmann, a professor of sociology at Bielefeld University, built his social systems theory on the term autopoiesis. Proposed by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela as an explanation of the essential question, “What is the organic constitution of life?” autopoiesis was originally proposed as a biological theory to define life. Maturana believed that “life is an autopoiesis system. Although only a biological theory, in the 1980s, German sociologist Niklas Luhmann applied this theory to sociology and published his original “social systems theory.” This theory considered society as an autopoiesis system, and this led to various things being regarded as autopoiesis systems, and autopoiesis theory has come to be applied in various fields.
Explain this table
Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory is based on multidimensional, complementary, and interpenetrating systems. Let me explain why I have used Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory to describe human consciousness and reason. When we think of things as a system, it is best to do so in a way that is common to all when communicating our intentions to others, that is, in the most up-to-date way to communicate in a universal way. If we imagine multiple elements functioning organically as a single mechanism, it would be appropriate to consider human consciousness and reason as an autopoiesis system in order to describe them. For this reason, we have adopted Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems.
The autopoiesis system is a system that produces the elements that make up the self, that is, it produces itself and changes its form.
Reduction of complexity
One of the characteristics of Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems is simply expressed as a reduction of complexity. It means that we must prepare ourselves to deal with complexity. For example, if one wants to handle the finer parts of a watch, one must have dexterity and also delicate nerves, and a tenacious spirit. If you are strong but rough, you will not be able to handle complex and delicate objects. It may fail to notice a delicate object and destroy it. Inherently, “reduction of complexity” means being both powerful and able to see the delicate object. “Reduction of complexity” means that people need to acquire the necessary skills and mindset to be able to deal with such things.
I have tried to express it in a concrete table. I tried to express this table in a list to show the relationship between scientific and religious concepts from the items represented in the table, using reason, which is a universal human function. The reason why I expressed it in such a table is because I thought it was necessary to capture the whole picture at once, since modern society is fragmented and diversified.
I think it is necessary to describe these contents in a way that includes structural relationships, rather than listing them one by one in a bulleted list. Consciousness is what represents where the person stops and pays attention, and reason is the object to which consciousness refers.
I believe that Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory is a theory built on autopoiesis, which is an artificial creation by humans, but how can it respond to natural phenomena? Since the autopoiesis system is based on the principle of the neural mechanism of the organism, which is organic in nature, we believe that it can be well matched and accepted with natural phenomena.
The system maintains its system boundaries by making itself more complex to the extent that it can tolerate more complex and bizarre relationships with its external environment. This is called “reduction of complexity.” A system that responds to the complexity of the real world responds to external complexity by retaining internal complexity. Failure to respond means death. Death for a living system is the cessation of the operation of the autopoiesis system, or its extinction.
Organisms automatically respond to “reduction of complexity.” An example is given of the manifestation of the reorganization of the brain in order for humans to respond to changed environmental circumstances. The organism’s behavior in response to its natural environment is reorganized into a mode of behavior that seems best for its existence.
Defining the relationship between “contingency” and “double contingency”
“Contingency” in the left column means that we are a mixture of certainty and uncertainty, and that there is nothing inevitable about the situation in which we currently find ourselves. We happen to exist in such a world. There is no absolute basis for such a situation. In fact, such contingency is the essence of life. Contingency makes us anxious. But this anxiety is the proof that we are life.
The “double contingency” in the right column is also known as “double conditional dependence”. Double conditional dependence is a double negation in the sense that to choose is a negation of a possibility that could have been otherwise. Here is an example of a strong affirmation with a double negation: the sentence.
“One cannot help but love someone.”
The above example sentence “negates” the negation once again. It has the same meaning as the affirmative, “I love someone,” but with emphasis.
In double negation, there are not only expressions of strong affirmation, but also usages of double negation that express an ambiguous affirmation that is not clear whether it is an affirmation or a negation.
“That’s not necessarily a bad thing.”
The above example sentence, on first reading, is not clear whether it is correct or incorrect.
This example sentence of double negation implies an affirmation of “correct” by negating the negation with a further negation, but with a more subtle nuance than the statement “correct.” Thus, the “double contingency” adds additional information to the main body of the sentence rather than directly expressing it. In other words, something is there, but it is not a clearly visible entity.
Let us apply this to human consciousness. We assume that others are our opaque selves. In other words, by experiencing oneself as another, the potential denied by choice is preserved and stabilized as a mutually unrealized but implied possibility in both oneself and in the experience as another. Luhmann called this situation “double contingency.”
From the table, a few excerpts illustrate “structural couplings”
“Structural coupling” is the process by which a system maintains its very reproduction mechanism, its “organization,” by altering its own structure and changing its environment in the face of environmental disturbances. This ongoing process between the system and the environment is what Maturana called structural coupling. Niklas Luhmann called the “system” paired with the “environment” in a limited area in the real world a “structural coupling.”
If you look at the right column of the table from top to bottom, you will notice that the elements that seem to need a medium to be represented are listed.
For example, regarding the structural coupling, or combination, of “continuity” and “change,” you can clearly see that the “change” on the right side has more information. That is, we can see an increase or decrease of information over time. In the “Continuity” on the left side, the cross-section of information relative to the time axis is constant and remains so over time. In “change” on the right, what is changing is an increase or decrease in the level of the medium that represents some information, indicating a change in the cross-section of information volume over time.
Let me explain “design” and “optimization.” Generally speaking, design refers to determining the internal structure, dimensions of each part, external design, and so on. Optimization refers to tuning the relationship between the components of the system, modifying the state and behavior of the system, and changing the form of the system to bring it closer to the optimum state. This refers to tuning the relationships among the components of the system, modifying the state and behavior of the system, and changing its form to bring it closer to an optimal state.
If the components of the system are made applicable to the design as “particles,” the relationship between each element and its position and relationship within the whole can be expressed as a “wave” of optimization.
Let me explain “relativity” and “symmetry.” Relativity means that the motion of an object is a cognitive event that is subjectively perceived by an observer. The motion of an object has a concrete, physical meaning only when it interacts with something else. Relativity does not require any standard, but is a subjective perception that can be arbitrarily determined, for example, how the object appears to the observer himself. The magnitude of an object’s motion, of course, but also the “existence of motion,” whether the object is stationary or moving, depends entirely on the observer’s position. In relativity, there is no so-called “absolute motion” that can be defined from an objective standpoint as “being at rest,” “being in motion,” or “being at speed XX. In relativity, it is indirectly stated that space serves no purpose as a background for absolute coordinates.
Symmetry is the property of an object that does not change when a transformation is applied to it, for example, with respect to a left-right flip or a 45° rotation. This unchangingness refers to the shape of the object.
In general, the symmetry of an object means that the form of the object does not change when a specified operation is applied to it. Such an operation is also called a “symmetry operation” or a “transformation. For example, when we say that a sphere has rotational symmetry, we mean that a sphere can be rotated by any angle about an arbitrary line passing through its center and still exactly overlap with the original sphere.
Symmetry in physics can be defined as the symmetry of a physical system, i.e., the “invariance” of the aspect of the system under a particular transformation.
“Invariance” can be rephrased as the mathematical specification of a transformation in which a quantity is constant and unchanging. This concept can be applied to fundamental phenomena observed in the real world. For example, suppose that the temperature in a room is ideally constant everywhere. Since the temperature does not depend on the position in the room, we can say that the temperature is “invariant” with respect to the movement of the position of the person being measured.
So far, I have explained symmetry as a mathematical or physical definition, but in order to have an internal pair structure and to remain unchanged from its original form even after various symmetry operations are applied, it must possess many symmetries.
Regarding the combination of “relativity” and “symmetry,” it is possible for humans to perceive the real world from a relative perspective alone. Symmetry has the property of requiring a medium, as explained in the “double contingency” section. It is an incidental mechanism that can be added to relativity. The relationship between relativity and symmetry is structural coupling. This structural coupling is supposed to benefit both of the pairs. They are complementary, not antagonistic. Relativity is the basic mechanism, but adding the property of symmetry makes it a circular system.
The nature of symmetry can be understood not as geometry or physics, but as the ability to regain deformation. Nature has become less realistic in recent years, with changes in the four seasons, allegedly due to global warming. Seasonal changes have resulted in shorter periods of spring and fall and longer periods of summer and winter. If global warming is caused by excessive economic activities, some measures may be necessary. However, if we consider temperature changes in terms of historical length, we have not necessarily been repeating the same cycle, with warmer temperatures in some periods and another ice age in others. Opinions differ as to whether such things should be left to nature or whether they should be managed by humans.
Let me explain about “death” and “resurrection.” After death, the human body ceases to exist. In most cases in Japan, this is so because we are cremated. According to the latest research, the human mind and body are described as “embodied” during life and cannot be separated.
By the way, are the heart and the soul the same thing? The heart is used in the field of morality and in general fields such as psychology, while the soul is used in the religious field. Souls are also used in the minds of people who have a high opinion of the dead person’s character and conduct. After death, the soul is said to leave the body and go to heaven or hell. The afterlife is probably not composed of matter, so it is something that cannot be explained scientifically, whether it exists or not.
Since there is no point in thinking about things that cannot be determined or that have no basis in reality during one’s lifetime, I would like to consider “death and resurrection in the real world” here. Let us consider “resurrection” in conjunction with “salvation. When we speak of “resurrection when alive,” we mean being spared from mortality. When a person is truly dead, there is nothing humanly possible to do. Salvation after death becomes a matter of interpretation.
Diglot Bible New Testament, Matthew 27
As they went out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. They compelled this man to carry his cross. And when they went come to a place called Golgotha (which means Place of the Skull), they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall, but when he tasted it, he would not to drink it. And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots. Then they sat down and kept watch over him there. And over his head they put charge against him, which read, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jew.” Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ ” And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way.
Jesus Christ brought the good news entrusted to Him by “Almighty God,” but the masses asked Him how they could save themselves. The masses said, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.” Answering this question was the last gospel that Jesus revealed with his physical body.
The mindless masses spoke out, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” The timing of these words is important. Jesus Christ was still alive when these words were hurled at Him. The masses were not saying, “Come back to life after you die.”
And Jesus Christ was resurrected. He showed us “how to save ourselves” by hanging Himself on the cross. He was caught without sin, put on trial, sentenced to death, and crucified and killed. However, the crucifixion was foretold by Himself. The only way to know that this is the teaching of truth is for Jesus himself to demonstrate it with his own body. The public thinks that words alone may be a lie. He really was killed that way. However, we may understand that the resurrection of Jesus Christ after His death indicates that God Almighty showed that His actions were in accordance with His will.
Now, can a person who is trapped at the edge of death, that is, at the end of his life, escape from that predicament on his own? The only way is through medical and pharmacological methods. The level of salvation will be determined by the medical technology of the time. In other cases, one can be saved by having someone else shoulder or remove the difficulty. In other cases, one may escape from it, but the basic condition for saving oneself is to do it voluntarily.
There is an old Western proverb that expresses this, “Heaven helps those who help themselves.” It means, “Heaven helps and gives happiness to those who strive on their own without relying on others.” This is the result of a search on a Web site. I somehow understand the nuance. It probably means that it is not good to depend on others all the time.
Since this is a Western proverb, I believe that heaven means “God Almighty.” If you read it more deeply, I think it means, “Notice the presence of the other I who resurrects itself after death, because I am now helping you in the real world.”
When self-help is performed with a single self, paradox and tautologies can occur. In order to avoid paradox and tautology in self-referential communication, the self is divided into two parts instead of a single entity, and the self is considered as a system consisting of elements that influence each other.
I considered the self to be composed of two elements. I expanded on this juxtaposition of the two and gave special meaning to the combination of “contingency” and “double contingency”. Luhmann referred to contingency and double contingency as a mechanism called “structural coupling.
The interpretation of contingency is “a being to whom all things are attributed to himself.” The interpretation of double contingency is “a being that cannot avoid being involved with others.” It can be said to be a combination of “the self that can be realized by itself” and “the self that is realized by leaving it to others. It can also be a combination of “the self that exists as a stand-alone entity” and “the self that belongs to society.” In simplest terms, it is a combination of “private self” and “public self.”
In conclusion, this is what I believe “death” and “resurrection” mean. In the real world, death in living beings is an inevitable element and cannot be avoided. Every human being will always die. If we are alive, it is important to realize that if we happen to fall into a difficult situation that we encounter, there is a mechanism in place to save us, and we can return to a healthy state of being again. One of the combinations is “to the end” and “as far as possible,” and I think the phrase “as far as possible” in the right-hand column also means to stay in the state before death.
I would like to explain about “purpose” and “reason,” although the combination is not shown in the table. For example, when we consider an action, if only the “purpose” in the left column is given, it means that the action is ordered by others. When the “purpose” and the “reason” are given together, it is a spontaneous action by the actual actor, even if it is commanded by others. It is the “purpose” and the “reason” that actually communicate. The combination of “purpose” and “reason” produces “spontaneous action. This communication needs no other elements than “purpose” and “reason” and is closed. If only the “purpose” is given to others, then the “reason” section will contain elements that are not inherent. In this case, it is an “order. The “purpose” and the “reason” are still “purpose” and “order,” and the two communicate and the action is carried out, but they are not the original elements. The “purpose” and the “reason” would be preferable. In an autopoiesis system, “spontaneity” is fundamental. “Reason” can be thought of as a mechanism to induce spontaneity in humans.