Conversation

Ontology problem. Can "interinstitutionality" (by analogy to "intersubjectivity") be considered the same as "public"?
2
4
Replying to
I'm thinking one level above, the matrix of relationships among institutions, so the public would be (for eg) what occupies the space between legal system, market, firms etc.
2
1
Replying to and
- public means the people as a whole - it's a collective noun, so a general/universal, which are relations - the fundament* of the relation "public" is the concept "people", and its terminus** is each individual person
1
Replying to and
- so institutions are identified with the relating process/rule/operation, while the public is identified with the terminus of a relation, even though both "institution" and "public" terminate at people. - hence, institutions aren't public
1
Replying to
Here's one litmus test question for a simpler case. Coasean economics posits a 3-element ontology: firm, market, and law. The market is roughly the "public" for the economy. Does it exist outside of specific trade-enabling institutions like stock exchanges?
1
1
Replying to
But decentralization does not imply de-institutionalization. The blockchain or whatever construct is replicated across the network, lending it identity and internal intelligibility, renders it an institution. But yeah, that's definitely as close to an edge case as possible.
Replying to
Decentralization of power/control does. A self-sovereign design, for example, can't be an institution. I think you've hit on a major societal ill: the the public has been emptied of function and meaning, and overshadowed - nearly totalised - by institutions. Time to reverse that
1
Replying to
I don't think I agree that it's an ill. I think it's fine to head towards a new regime where the intra-institutional reality is all there is. An "indoor" civilizational condition.
1
1
Show replies