Search results

systems don’t arise from nothing - they differentiate from other systems. law splits from religion when legal/illegal distinctions secularize ( shifting from “sin” to “crime” and so on). politics splits from kinship when power becomes bureaucratized insted of inherited. it’s simple social...

systems are not systems-for-us - they are systems-for-themselves. they are self-reproducing, self-referential entities that follow simple binary codes, that's the only way they communicate within themselves and with their outside environments. for example, if you're in a court the only way you...

comparison to dialectics misses the main point (porbably my bad) that systems aren’t “post-hoc rationalizations” but empirical, self-reproducing entities. dialectics resolves contradictions through synthesis while luhmann’s systems cannot resolve them at all —they’re trapped in operational...

isn't this like a better version of tailor swift?

or this

my girlfriend listens to this constantly. dosent it sort of fit?

and last thing; the single biggest problem with postmodernists - which really has crushed their line of thinking - was kind of the same or at least similar: they denied (or didn't recognzie) their own codes and self-referentiality; that's exactly the sense in which Luhmann is radically...

btw, pretty much the same could be said about Land's theories, since he's been mentioned here couple of times, because they too are based on these same misunderstandings and fallacies of hireachy and inner workings of systems and sub-systems.

you keep returning to this vertical, hierarchical, chain of being type of view, which i think is just a fallacy as far as furthering an understanding of modern society is concerned. that is also what i mean mean by "foundatinal claim" - the idea that you can prioratize one of these...

ok, but that's exactly the point - it's a self-referential claim made within marxisms own theoretical framework. So marxism, like any other system, already runs on it's own binary code exploitation/emancipation, bourgeois/proletariat, oppressor /oppressed or something like that (it also ties in...

each system observes all the others (environment) from it's own point of view based on it's own simplifying binary.

well it's an observation made from within sub-system of science/sociology (true/false); so, yeah, it won't have much use in, say, economy (payment/non-payment) or law (legal/illegal) or politics (power/no power; position/opposition). that's exactly the point. it's just an observations of how...

mega simplified version, because it would take a lot of effort to elucidate

since I already name-dropped Niklas Luhmann i can only riff on that a bit to make myself clear - when I say contingency I’m not trying to blow up frameworks or prove them wrong. society is as a bunch of separate ecosystems—politics, law, religion, economy (the field you and marxists in general...

so all criticism of marxism or dialectical materialism or that line of thinking in general is just hidden class interests?

this question is cognitively meaningless., any kind of verification requires observation and you ruled it out a priori. i mean, can you ask me the question without using human observation, language and concepts?

the whole point of his was exactly that conjunction is NOT a causation. causation as a necessary connection is a mental habit we project on regular observations not an intrinsic feature of reality.