Love colours experience […] and thereby changes the world as a horizon of experience and behavior by means of its own characteristic totality. It gives certain things and events, people and communications, a special persuasive power.” – Niklas Luhmann in Love. A Sketch (2010: 8)

The one archetypal social system that arises from family life has love as its commonality-seeking communication medium. The fact that there are four such archetypes in total (family, religion, politics and economy) to someone’s experience means that the other four systems are of a still typical, but less rooted systemic type. Luhmann’s conviction that love permeates and structures many systems means that we not should look at love as guiding behavior – such as sexual fidelity – first and foremost, but as ‘making things more persuasive’ in their control over us. This is, of course, a very vague description of the feeling, almost vague enough to take its place among common descriptions of love.

When speaking of the family system, love arises as the ‘betwixt and between’ of the better/worse distinction, where the better child is born in the first place and thus able to receive love (as admiration), but the worse child that is born after all is bound to receive more love (as care). Though the medium love is structuring expectations and communications within this system, the child is free to / must interpret what he/she received in accordance with its own insights.

How To Not Try

What people say about being funny generally doesn’t make sense. They will for instance say that you shouldn’t try to be funny. But it often turns out that the ones that do try find themselves at least trying to be very funny, and therefore funny. There is no one in the world that would self-exclaim to not have a sense of humor. Well, except me and some other radicals perhaps.

Even if we are not educated we are capable of seeing our psychic apparatus as constantly being confronted with duality of some kind. Bad of good, pure or cluttered, vague or clear. We can’t see beyond because we would lose control of everything, including of meaning. Being human sometimes means attempting to control the uncontrollable.

A system of society could also have us in its control. That is easier to understand. Many scientists have seen this possibility and the metabiological perception of a system that is beyond anyone’s reach providing each and every person with the choices that be, is one such contribution to the search for a maximum to these dualisms. ‘How’ a system’s language plays on us and the subsequent radical observation of what happens on this meta level must seem at least as funny to such system as it seems hopeless to us.