Dear Gary,
Of course, Stephen should answer this question, because the headline is from him, but I say something too, because this question is relevant in systems theories, that are often subsumed under "ontology". Ontology suggests an all-knowing observer. This is a precarious thing to suggest, so for example Luhmann also looks at the "interpenetration" of two systems in two ways: One time the one is the system and the other environment, and the other time vice versa. So, when there are many systems, all having something to do with each other, one will have to look at each of them with each at a time being the interpreting system (the subject, the observer). The systems means for interpretation is the thirdness (structure) of the looked-at system. Here I already have mixed in some Peirce terminology, Luhmann rather calls it interpenetration and structural coupling. But i am not a Luhmann expert now, I will have to read some more first.
Gesendet: Dienstag, 03. Juni 2014 um 11:35 Uhr
Von: "Gary Moore" <[email protected]>
An: "Helmut Raulien" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "John N. Deely" <[email protected]>
Betreff: Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
Von: "Gary Moore" <[email protected]>
An: "Helmut Raulien" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "John N. Deely" <[email protected]>
Betreff: Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
What determines what "real world" is, and what is the basis of the authority of that "what" and how is it established?
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 4:07 AM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Stephen,
for me systems theory is very attractive, because I think, that it opens a way of reflection of why things are the way they are. And when people see that, they can take measures to change things they do not like. Luhmann says, that systems act intentionally, draw distinctions between themselves and their environment, and reenter these distinctions into themselves. And for social systems the people are environment. So, social systems distinguish also between people and sort them out. I think, that can be called discrimination, and for the sorted out ones it is oppression. Though Lumann always took care to be non-normative and non-humanist, I think, that his theory can be used for humanism, ie. for emancipation from the systems dictate. Social systems are much less rigid than other systems: One can define the structure and extension of a social system he or she wants to be in. With the communication system of one self (mind, body, mind related behaviour) this is not so. So, I see great hope in systems theory, it can be for example like a therapy even to overcome the influence of the primal nurturer. So, because I think, that oppression is reality, I agree with feminism too (except the mentioned anti-instinct-party). That is because I think, that there still is a lot more misogyny than misandry in the world: I even would call myself a feminist, if I knew, whether I could do that, not being a woman. I think, Luhmanns theory can be combined with Peirces very well. My choice for systems theory rather than for developmental psychology is based on the fact, that it is less frustrating and thus more fun for me. But that is just my way, I do not like astrology either, for example, because it is too determining, and therefore creepy to me. Systems are creepy too, but only until they are understood, I hope.
Best regards,
Helmut
Gesendet: Dienstag, 03. Juni 2014 um 08:37 Uhr
Von: "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]>
An: "'Helmut Raulien'" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Betreff: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
Von: "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]>
An: "'Helmut Raulien'" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Betreff: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
Hi Helmut,
It seems that we are more or less on the same page... yes, the problem IS a systemic one. I say "more or less" because I do not subscribe to the notion of instinct (as genetically determined) at all. My own thesis is that it is ALL mind-stuff in humans and non-humans and this establishes an important relationship between the cultural known and the cultural unknown (to which gender roles are related). But I digress.
People need to resist the "oppression narrative" because that is not a principle relevant to how cultures work. "Knowing how to be" is a much more important mechanism. It wires brains. And 90% of a human brain's wiring is said to be accomplished within the first four years of life. Clearly, this time period falls well within the influence of the primary nurturer. It is the primary nurturer that first establishes the things that matter in the child's rapidly developing brain. Thus the primary nurturer's role is particularly important from the perspective of pragmatism.
Consider the potential for how invisible the primary nurturer's role can be in first defining the things that matter. It establishes the givens in our minds. Men are providers, women are provided-for. "It’s just how it is" goes the given. It is the fact that is accepted at face value and promulgated every time mom buys Jenny a doll and Johnny a toy truck. And as Jenny and Johnny grow up and attend school, their "givens" are looking for a cause, and that's where feminism comes in. "The provider/provided-for roles matter... but don't blame poor mom, she's just an innocent stay-at-home."
The oppression narrative is a childish, solipsistic one that has no place in any intelligent conversation. A living system (culture) is comprised of many agents, and everyone is an accomplice in how culture evolves.
Indeed, consider the domestic violence propaganda that is hitting the mainstream media in many countries. It's the same, one-dimensional narrative of man-versus-woman. But what about the children? What about the child abuse to which children are first exposed, and in which women are the primary perpetrators? The man-versus-woman narrative ignores the original source of the violence that a child first learns from their primary nurturer.
sj
-----Original Message-----
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, 2 June 2014 8:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
Dear Stephen, List,
I think, that misogyny and misandry have systemic reasons: A human body is secondness of two (or more) systems: The thinking/communication system, in which the mind is thirdness (structure), and the self and species preserving system, in which epigenes and genes are the structure (genes being a superstructure for the self preserving subsystem, because they cannot be changed within one person). Now these two systems have two separate firstnesses (behaviours): The mind controlled behaviour and the instinctive (eg. sexual) behaviour. Now, in a mind focussed society, especially when it has a God associated merely with logos and mind, people are scared, when they, observing their own behaviour, see, that there is a part of their own behaviour which is not controlled by the holy mind. Now the psychological mechanisms defence and projection are at hand: The slightly stronger (with regards to communication) group (men) apply these mechanisms on the slightly weaker (off-times due to pregnancy and intensive child care) group (women). Women are said to be the reason for this scary thing, easily being obsessed by the devil, and to be the ones to stone in case of adultry. Best to keep them in the kitchen. But women who fight against this patriarchalism often also defend and project the instincts: Some say, that sexuality is an instrument of power men use to opress women. This anti-instinct fraction within feminism make the same mistakes, men have made, and are misandric. So I think, that the solution to all this might be, that women and men together analyze all this by systems theory, see, that the bogeyman is neither the women nor the men, but the logic of systems, and discuss what to do. The good news in this thread of reasoning is: The ground (bogeyman) for misandry/misogyny is not cultural tradition (which is said hard to overcome), but systems logic. With this we can cope easily, once we have uncovered its mechanisms.
Best,
Helmut
Gesendet: Montag, 02. Juni 2014 um 07:53 Uhr
Von: "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]>
An: [email protected]
Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
Greetings everyone
The ultimate test of a successful paradigm is its ability to provide
real-world solutions to real-world problems. My posts on AVFM do not
specifically spell out semiotic or cybernetic or systems-theoretical
principles, but they are there, always informing me of the interweaved
layers of meaning that are ultimately bound together into a cultural whole.
There is a paradigm-shift in the making. In this spirit, I provide my latest
contribution:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-violence/the-misandry-behind-m
isogyny/
As you could imagine, these ideas are heretical to the Church of the
Establishment and its followers:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/dont-let-them-silence-us-international-
conference-on-mens-issues/
History repeats. Does it, or what?
Stephen Jarosek
Budapest, Hungary
+36 20 5168350
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
It seems that we are more or less on the same page... yes, the problem IS a systemic one. I say "more or less" because I do not subscribe to the notion of instinct (as genetically determined) at all. My own thesis is that it is ALL mind-stuff in humans and non-humans and this establishes an important relationship between the cultural known and the cultural unknown (to which gender roles are related). But I digress.
People need to resist the "oppression narrative" because that is not a principle relevant to how cultures work. "Knowing how to be" is a much more important mechanism. It wires brains. And 90% of a human brain's wiring is said to be accomplished within the first four years of life. Clearly, this time period falls well within the influence of the primary nurturer. It is the primary nurturer that first establishes the things that matter in the child's rapidly developing brain. Thus the primary nurturer's role is particularly important from the perspective of pragmatism.
Consider the potential for how invisible the primary nurturer's role can be in first defining the things that matter. It establishes the givens in our minds. Men are providers, women are provided-for. "It’s just how it is" goes the given. It is the fact that is accepted at face value and promulgated every time mom buys Jenny a doll and Johnny a toy truck. And as Jenny and Johnny grow up and attend school, their "givens" are looking for a cause, and that's where feminism comes in. "The provider/provided-for roles matter... but don't blame poor mom, she's just an innocent stay-at-home."
The oppression narrative is a childish, solipsistic one that has no place in any intelligent conversation. A living system (culture) is comprised of many agents, and everyone is an accomplice in how culture evolves.
Indeed, consider the domestic violence propaganda that is hitting the mainstream media in many countries. It's the same, one-dimensional narrative of man-versus-woman. But what about the children? What about the child abuse to which children are first exposed, and in which women are the primary perpetrators? The man-versus-woman narrative ignores the original source of the violence that a child first learns from their primary nurturer.
sj
-----Original Message-----
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, 2 June 2014 8:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
Dear Stephen, List,
I think, that misogyny and misandry have systemic reasons: A human body is secondness of two (or more) systems: The thinking/communication system, in which the mind is thirdness (structure), and the self and species preserving system, in which epigenes and genes are the structure (genes being a superstructure for the self preserving subsystem, because they cannot be changed within one person). Now these two systems have two separate firstnesses (behaviours): The mind controlled behaviour and the instinctive (eg. sexual) behaviour. Now, in a mind focussed society, especially when it has a God associated merely with logos and mind, people are scared, when they, observing their own behaviour, see, that there is a part of their own behaviour which is not controlled by the holy mind. Now the psychological mechanisms defence and projection are at hand: The slightly stronger (with regards to communication) group (men) apply these mechanisms on the slightly weaker (off-times due to pregnancy and intensive child care) group (women). Women are said to be the reason for this scary thing, easily being obsessed by the devil, and to be the ones to stone in case of adultry. Best to keep them in the kitchen. But women who fight against this patriarchalism often also defend and project the instincts: Some say, that sexuality is an instrument of power men use to opress women. This anti-instinct fraction within feminism make the same mistakes, men have made, and are misandric. So I think, that the solution to all this might be, that women and men together analyze all this by systems theory, see, that the bogeyman is neither the women nor the men, but the logic of systems, and discuss what to do. The good news in this thread of reasoning is: The ground (bogeyman) for misandry/misogyny is not cultural tradition (which is said hard to overcome), but systems logic. With this we can cope easily, once we have uncovered its mechanisms.
Best,
Helmut
Gesendet: Montag, 02. Juni 2014 um 07:53 Uhr
Von: "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]>
An: [email protected]
Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
Greetings everyone
The ultimate test of a successful paradigm is its ability to provide
real-world solutions to real-world problems. My posts on AVFM do not
specifically spell out semiotic or cybernetic or systems-theoretical
principles, but they are there, always informing me of the interweaved
layers of meaning that are ultimately bound together into a cultural whole.
There is a paradigm-shift in the making. In this spirit, I provide my latest
contribution:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-violence/the-misandry-behind-m
isogyny/
As you could imagine, these ideas are heretical to the Church of the
Establishment and its followers:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/dont-let-them-silence-us-international-
conference-on-mens-issues/
History repeats. Does it, or what?
Stephen Jarosek
Budapest, Hungary
+36 20 5168350
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
