Search results

the only problem with music, if you want to see is as a problem, is that there's way too much of it to proces, too many nodes to connect to and it has mostly departed from meatworld to digital realm. like the guy before said that there are no experimentations with alternate tunings within...

it's also worth mentioning, which i think ties in with a lot of talk about capitalism/neoliberalism and media saturation, which seem the two big topics on many minds, that there is deffo a difference regarding velocity or more precisley - how effectivley each system can communicate with the help...

ok, on a empirical level then. because they obviously function somehow. all these seperate things - like football games, traffic, computers, courts, markets, media systems, political parties it all functions around us all the time. so how do they? (no collectivley, but as seperate entities, of...

so you don't agree that they function based on these binaries?

the legal system doesn’t borrow market logic - it resolves financial disputes with its own code (legal/illegal). market transactions can only happen within market itself (payment/non-payment). those are paraller systems. if court forces somone to pay a fine it's not following market code of...

when you say that systems like law or the economy are “static” because they rely on fixed codes (legal/illegal, payment/ non-payment), you’re missing the point. the systems aren’t rigid , they’re dynamic, self-sustaining processes. it's like software - each runs on its own code, constantly...

that's why he also thinks post-modern is a nonsense term, because there is modern, functionally differentiated society for couple of centuries; there are no real breaks since moving away from stratified society

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...