If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
Einherjar86
Active Member
This seems relevant, so I'm going to post it here.
I read an essay for my upcoming exams that oddly has a lot to offer this discussion. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding it via my library's search engine. It's included in an anthology titled Observing Complexity: Systems Theory and Postmodernity, edited by William Rasch and Cary Wolfe.
In the essay, which is by Rasch and titled "The Limit of Modernity: Luhmann and Lyotard on Exclusion," the author delineates between two varying modes of speaking about exclusion - the logical and the political (or moral). The author contends that (following systems theory) exclusion is an operation of the world; it is simply a process by which complex systems designate themselves and make decisions. Every decision necessitates an exclusion of some kind (I choose this and not this).
However, while exclusion in a logical sense is unavoidable, exclusion in a moral sense is to be avoided at all costs. We encounter a dilemma when we realize that the decision to include someone/something can only be done at the cost of excluding something else. All decisions necessitate an inclusion and an exclusion. Rasch argues that rather than admit defeat or privilege one side, we have to recognize that neither side is "right" in any kind of evaluative sense; rather, both sides simply operate according to different codes, and these codes remain incompatible with each other. In a politicized society, the inevitability of decisive operations will always be interpreted as oppressive:
Any attempt to appeal to logic in order to erase the political dynamics of social operations (or move past them, dissolve them, assuage them via appropriation) - that is, to exclude the logic of exclusion - becomes an ideological act because it appears to will the ignorance of political plight, or to make the assumption that such suffering is over, done, in the past.
I read an essay for my upcoming exams that oddly has a lot to offer this discussion. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding it via my library's search engine. It's included in an anthology titled Observing Complexity: Systems Theory and Postmodernity, edited by William Rasch and Cary Wolfe.
In the essay, which is by Rasch and titled "The Limit of Modernity: Luhmann and Lyotard on Exclusion," the author delineates between two varying modes of speaking about exclusion - the logical and the political (or moral). The author contends that (following systems theory) exclusion is an operation of the world; it is simply a process by which complex systems designate themselves and make decisions. Every decision necessitates an exclusion of some kind (I choose this and not this).
However, while exclusion in a logical sense is unavoidable, exclusion in a moral sense is to be avoided at all costs. We encounter a dilemma when we realize that the decision to include someone/something can only be done at the cost of excluding something else. All decisions necessitate an inclusion and an exclusion. Rasch argues that rather than admit defeat or privilege one side, we have to recognize that neither side is "right" in any kind of evaluative sense; rather, both sides simply operate according to different codes, and these codes remain incompatible with each other. In a politicized society, the inevitability of decisive operations will always be interpreted as oppressive:
Any attempt to appeal to logic in order to erase the political dynamics of social operations (or move past them, dissolve them, assuage them via appropriation) - that is, to exclude the logic of exclusion - becomes an ideological act because it appears to will the ignorance of political plight, or to make the assumption that such suffering is over, done, in the past.
Dak
mentat
Everything is necessarily oppression....and therefore nothing is oppression. At least that was my super quick interpretation and response.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I'm not really sure I have a perfect interpretation for it.
I would hesitate to say that the author ever claims there's no such thing as oppression, though.
I would hesitate to say that the author ever claims there's no such thing as oppression, though.
You sound like a pussy.
American people saying shit like this are hilarious. The vast majority of you would never even react to being attacked. Fucking mugs.
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
There's quite a lot of evidence actually if you study the economics.
What people do ignore however is that the emergence of liberal programs in the middle of the 20th century created to help minorities has actually set them back decades.
They kicked England's ass, they killed the mastermind behind 9/11 and there are a myriad of videos on youtube of people being robbed and kicking the ass of the robber, shooting at criminals... What the fuck are you on about twat?
Krow
Garbage Connoisseur
WHATS THAT? CANT HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF OUR FREEDOM.
That's the response you want, isn't it Shirley?
They didn't kick Britain's ass.
I'm not sure I can credit the second part with a response.
The evidence shows that guns do not help people to protect themselves. A few videos means fuck all.
And as someone that has gone in and gotten fucked up by groups of people more than once in order to help complete strangers that are being fucked over by groups of pussies, I feel fairly justified in calling out pussies. Suck my cunt, you pussy twat.
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
Actually no, it does not. Where the hell are you getting your evidence from? Most countries with stricter gun control policies have much higher rates of murders and crimes when compared to other countries. And that my friend, is not an opinion.
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
As I said earlier, Australia's firearm buy back scheme did basically SHIT for the crime rates.
Last edited by a moderator:
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,849
- 113
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,849
- 113
Are you a meth addict or something and get into regular brawls defending your fellow meth addicts? You post like someone that enjoys initiating physical violence and the idea of someone stopping you frightens you.
Most of that "evidence" refers to increased rates of suicide and accidental shootings, the former not really anyone's business, the latter mixed but not equivalent to a death (or rape) due to inability to defend yourself. The correlation between gun deaths and gun ownership disappears when you look only at homicides, and while the United States is an outlier in homicide compared to other Western nations, there are many other factors that don't apply to those countries. Something like half of all gun homicides are committed by black males aged 16-24; Europe doesn't have gang culture, it doesn't have a comparable demographic in terms of institutional racism/class struggles, it doesn't have a war on drugs that makes gun violence profitable.
Krow
Garbage Connoisseur
Reading this in the accent of a drunken Englishman with one eye open makes it even better.
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
Dak
mentat
Go home tagradh, you're drunk.
@Ein: The latter bit was my response. If everything is x, then nothing is really x.
@Ein: The latter bit was my response. If everything is x, then nothing is really x.
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
The argument that banning guns will lower crime rates is crap. However, it looks to me like banning guns in Australia did lower the homicide rate significantly and consistently, which, really, is the purpose of banning guns.
Personally, I don't think a total gun ban is necessary. Hand guns are the problem, not shotguns and rifles, shotguns of which are more than sufficient for home defense. "Assault weapons" like the AR-15 have gotten a lot of attention in the States, but they're not a major contributing factor to homicide rates when compared to hand guns.
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
Einherjar86
Active Member
I know - you say that a lot.
I don't think you can reduce it to that, based on the essay (which I only posted an excerpt of). Obviously everything is politicized in our culture, but this doesn't then mean that nothing is. One of the consequences of Rasch's argument is that you can't deploy logic to critique the ubiquity of ideology - accordingly, it simply becomes ideological.
Rasch isn't arguing that "nothing is political/oppressive" - he's arguing that moral/political vocabulary turns everything into a matter of oppression since every social process dictates a decision and thereby an exclusion. However, in the logical vocabulary of exclusion, this isn't oppressive, it's simply necessary - so there is no oppression in that particular language game.
Of course, saying we should just appeal only to logic won't work either, because this doesn't address the fact that humans can experience anguish, pain, discomfort, etc. I think the article can be read as a critique of politics, but that isn't really what it's doing. It's explaining, via systems logic, where the discrepancy between a language of systems logic and a language of political morality comes from. According to Rasch, the ethical imperative of society lies in negotiating this discrepancy.
Similar threads
