Good point about keeping in perspective the particularities of Luhmann’s own theoretical commitments! What is distinctive about his sociological “Systemtheorie” is at least the following:
- he was convinced that abstraction is the path to insight (his seminal book “Social Systems” opens with a comparison of his theory to flying above the clouds and only occasionally glimpsing the land below);
- he was suspicious of what he dismissed as “old European” assumptions about what happens in the social world being a matter of individuals engaging in intentional actions for reason. Rather, according to Luhmann’s systems theory, structures reproduce themselves and interact with one another via “autopoetic” processes that have nothing to do with people understanding or consciously guiding what they are doing.
I think that especially this second point is related to the tendency among some Zettelkasters (and, perhaps, Roamans) to hype the idea that the well-ordered ideas will magically form themselves, bottom up.
One thing I really like about the way in which many on the Obsidian forum approach PKM – and I’m especially thinking of @nickmilo and his LYT approach – is the acknowledgement that there is plenty of intentional thought that has to go into curation of notes, to thoughtfully pruning the garden, as it were. Maybe this approach worked automagically for Luhmann himself, but I doubt it works for many people. What must of us need are tools that encourage a mix of intentional curation and unintentionally connection.