Luhmann writes that trust...

"always bears upon a critical alternative, in which the harm resulting from a breach of trust may be greater than the benefit to be gained from the trust proving warranted. Hence one who trusts takes congnizance of the possibility of excessive harm arising from the selectivity of others' actions and adopts a position towards that possibility. One who hopes simply has confidence despite uncertainty. Trust reflects contingency. Hope ignores contingency".

As an example, Luhmann says that leaving your child with a babysitter is not a case of trust but of hope.
I'm experiencing absolute uncertainty as to my selection between multiple interpretations.
What, I beg you, does he mean?

posted by Jonas Heide Smith  # 15.10.04