Theory of a different order: a conversation with Katherine Hayles and Niklas Luhmann
K Hayles, N Luhmann, W Rasch, E Knodt, C Wolfe - Cultural Critique, 1995 - JSTOR
K Hayles, N Luhmann, W Rasch, E Knodt, C Wolfe
Cultural Critique, 1995•JSTOR8 Katherine Hayles and Niklas Luhmann tique. And that impasse, to schematically represent
it, seems to be the problem of theorizing the contingency and constructedness of knowledge
without falling into the morass of relativism (as the charge is usually made) or, to give it a
somewhat more challenging valence, without falling into philosophical idealism. You both
have worked on this, and I'm wondering if each of you could explain, in whatever order you'd
like, what makes second-order theory distinctive, and how it might help move the current …
it, seems to be the problem of theorizing the contingency and constructedness of knowledge
without falling into the morass of relativism (as the charge is usually made) or, to give it a
somewhat more challenging valence, without falling into philosophical idealism. You both
have worked on this, and I'm wondering if each of you could explain, in whatever order you'd
like, what makes second-order theory distinctive, and how it might help move the current …
8 Katherine Hayles and Niklas Luhmann tique. And that impasse, to schematically represent it, seems to be the problem of theorizing the contingency and constructedness of knowledge without falling into the morass of relativism (as the charge is usually made) or, to give it a somewhat more challenging valence, without falling into philosophical idealism. You both have worked on this, and I'm wondering if each of you could explain, in whatever order you'd like, what makes second-order theory distinctive, and how it might help move the current critical debates beyond the sort of realism versus idealism deadlock that I've just described.
JSTOR