Are All Democrats Creatures of 2nd Order Observation?

Excerpt from Hans-Georg Moeller video above:

Nicholas Luhmann

...at the level of first-order observation,...we...describe facts and objects as existing in such terms as... "there is" socialization, "there is" consciousness, "there is" life, and so forth.... The world is presented as if it was just there in the... way in which it was described.

...In biology, society, etc., everything acquires... a modality of being in relation to a reference, an observer, an observing system. ...the shift to Second Order Observation is a shift of consciousness of reality to a description of descriptions.

Kant observed REASON as an observing system. He called it "transcendental Philosophy". Hegel developed Kant's approach. For Hegel, reality is neither simply "in itself", that is "objective", nor simply "for itself", that is "subjective"; but is "in and for itself" that is, both objective and subjective. We must consider both these moments in relation to one another. So for Kant, the observing system was Reason, or Vernunft. Vernunft is static and a priori. For Hegel the observing system was Spirit or Geist and Geist is dynami,c and constantly develops itself through its' own observations.

For Luhmann there is a multiplicity of observing systems; social systems, mental systems, biological systems, and potentially others. They're all autopoietic and they develop and reproduce themselves while observing and influencing one another.

I'm not sure if Kant and Hegel's philosophical shift to second order observation had any effect on Analytic Philosophy, but it did have a big impact not just on Luhmann, but on Continental Philosophy. Nietsche, for instance, thought in the mode of second order observation when criticizing Plato, Christianity, or Kant, for that matter. He doesn't simply argue that they are wrong about some facts. He doesn't simply disagree with them in the mode of first order observation. Instead, he observes them as observers, criticizing not just what they say but how and why they say what they say, and what they don't say.

The second order observation approach characterizes many 20th century thinkers including Freud, Derrida, and Foucault. They didn't just theorize about what dreams, texts, or history said. They weren't just focused on the message. Instead they looked at dreams, texts, or history in relation to an observing system; a psychological system, textual system, a power system which produces these messages.

This approach makes an ontological difference, a difference of Being. There are no longer simply dreams, texts, or history as facts or objects. There are observations by and for observers. Psychoanalysis, deconstruction, genealogy, and social systems theory are all second order observation theories.

Now second, to sociology. In modern society, according to Luhmann, and I think he's right, we did not only switch to theories of second order observation, virtually all of society also switched to practices of second order observation. Luhmann writes "The perception of what others say, or do not say, has become the advanced mode of perceiving the world in modern society; in science no less than in the economy, in art as much as in politics." And I think Luhmann is right. In today's society, as he writes, it is no longer necessary to know how the world is as long as we know how it is observed, and as long as we know how it is observed and find orientation in second order observation.

Arguably, second order observation evolved most forcefully in the economy by the rapid development of financial markets. Back in the 1930s, John Maynard Keynes illustrated the key role of second order observation in the economy with the example of a new kind of beauty contest. Keynes' beauty contest is not about seeing who is the prettiest, but about seeing who is seen as the prettiest. Keynes writes, "It's not the case of choosing those faces that to the best of one's judgment are really the prettiest, nor even those that average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion to be." And there are some, I believe, who practice the fourth fifth and higher degrees.

The financial markets create economic value through second order observation processes. Just like Keynes beauty contest creates beauty value. I discussed more examples of second order observations in other videos. Here I just want to say yes second order observation has a long history, but its institutionalization in the form of rating, ranking, and reviewing "systems" is a new thing. For a career as an academic, for instance, you need to be successful in the Peer review System, and that's new. And believe it or not, when I was a student that system didn't exist. The whole digital revolution, the spread of algorithms that influenced most of social life today, is a practice of second order observation.

AI is misnamed. It's actually not intelligent in the sense of thinking. How do ChatGPT or Deep Seek work? They calculate probabilities by observing observers. They do not understand any message or any meaning. But they are very good at statistically observing your observations. By observing what and how people observe, not what they think or feel, AI can, for instance in the form of text generation, reproduce such observations artificially. What is more, it can and does condition your observations. The fact that you are watching this video right now is conditioned by organized, commodified, and digitalized second order observation.

Third, second order observation has an existential dimension. It's built into the identity technology of profolicity. In authenticity we're concerned with Dasein, as Heidegger said, with "being there". But in profilicity, we're concerned with "Dastehen", with standing there in the eyes of an observer. We see ourselves as being seen. When shaping our sense of self we orient ourselves to others, to our general peer, or our "scrollmates" as viewer Charlie Abbott suggested we call them.

In an existentialism of the 21st century, we need to move beyond Heidegger and understand that there is no simple "being there". In order to "be there" you need to stand there in the first place. Dasein is Dastehen.

Your online profile is just "standing there" (Dastehen), after all.

"... I've built my PROFILE, so you must respect my iDEN-ti-TAH!

Democrats - Masters of Dastehen (Standing There, in the Eyes of an Observer/ General Peer)  Look (Observe) at ME and at how BEAUTIFUL I am!  I LOOK Good!

Republicans - Masters of Dasein (Being There, in the Eyes of an Observer/ Friend)  Look (Observe) at the WONDERFUL Things I've Created!  If  THEY LOOK Good, I AM Good!