We need to make some clarifications here.
Your very American opposition between "Liberals" and "Indvidualists" is a very American opposition.
Dino and I live in Europe where this opposition does not exist or is of very limited interest.
Like Zarathushtra, Dino and I are PRAGMATISTS and neither individualists or liberals or Marxists or whatever.
The concept of autopoesis was first developed in the early 1970s by the Chilean philosophers Maturana and Varela and was then introduced to sociology by the formidable thinker Niklas Luhmann.
Neither of these three gentlemen fit into your American opposition pair.
So you are just going to have to adjust to a world of philosophy were the old oppositions are dated and no longer of interest. The important thing now is to find a home for the strong individual you are promoting within this new environment. And perhaps then Michel Foucault's concept of living your life as a work of art is more helpful than Ayn Rand?
Calling me and Dino "American Liberals" is however definitely to miss the point. But I guess that is good news, don't you think? Now we can together see what happens when Rand meets Foucault, Luhmann and others. What can WE create out of these mergers in a society and within a worldview which is POST the old opposition?
Have you read Varela or Luhrmann yet? Or perhaps the greatest giant of the process philosophers, Gilles Deleuze, who also studied and promoted autopoesis heavily in opposition to Habermas (who really is a Marxist!).
2009/10/17 Special Kain
- Dölj citerad text -
Well, Judy, I'm a top sociologist and media scientist, so I perfectly know what autopoiesis means. And you can't judge our societies on the grounds of biology. That's exactly what Richard Dawkins was so bothered by the mid-1970's, so he came up with memetics to provide an alternative (which wasn't very successful, admittedly, but not because it would be all wrong). The word "collectivism" obviously struck a nerve, didn't it?
If you did your research better, then you'd know by now that Luhmann adopted the concept of autopoiesis and applied it to his systems theory, which is known as "die autopoietische Wende". But, as I said, it can't explain sociation. Habermas was one of his most prominent opponents, heavily relying on a communications theoretical reformulation of the Enlightement project - with the intersubjective recognition of potentially criticizable validity claims as the foundation of socation in modern societies ("die intersubjektive Anerkennung kritisierbarer Anerkennung als Grundlage der Vergesellschaftung"). Still I think you should get familiar with the controversy between them in order to UNDERSTAND what was going on. It's quite tough, absolutely no picnic, but will eventually pimp your brains (which is never a bad thing).
But let me please answer to some of your (silly) objections (while ignoring your Randian fundamentalism):
The major problem with all of these "utopian" idealistic, irrational, dream world, "communes" is that the designers and dreamers such as yourself...have not a clue as to what variances there are in human psychology.. .and if they do, or were exposed to such facts, refuse to recognize it
That's just a very bold claim, nothing else. I guess that anyone who knows me - even some folks here on Ushta - agree that I'm one of the fastest-learning, most curious and smartest members who has no problem whatsoever with adjusting my head with reality. And please don't forget who you're addressing your postings to - I, Dino, was the one to bring up William James concerning the psychologization of the religious experience. ;-)
And, please, not every community-minded person is a communist! Communism is dead and I don't know of any Zoroastrian supporting communism. But when reading the Gathas it's made perfectly clear that Zarathushtra was concerned with settled communities and their growth and cultural evolution. And cultural evolution is different from natural evolution. Evolutionary psychology and sociobiology aren't that popular anymore.
Now try this one on for size...the lower the IQ of an individual.. .or a group, the more they "need" a "community" to survive...whereas, the higher the IQ is of the individual.. .the less there is of a need for a regulated, held in check, mandated community. Now extrapolate that fact and see what you come up with. By the way...what is your IQ?
Shit, it really must have made you extremely angry. I guess whatever I would come up - the reputation of the University of Zurich, my grades, my professors's statements etc. - can't calm you down and see me for who I am. I'm definitely one the smartest to have graduated this year at one of the world's leading universities. If Zurich is known for anything else than money, then it's science and research (and not for pop culture, unfortunately).
By the way, such a relentless psychologization of people who are more community-minded than others is pointless. Where does health start, where does it end? This is pathologization, which is an instrument of power - silencing the opponents, discriminating against them, excluding them. See Michel Foucault and Eva Illouz for further infotainment.
I asked him why he had to "ask permission from his family" to get surgery? He said...that he respected his family and to defy them or make an independent decision...was an insult to the family (community). ..Therefore, in your below quotations.. ..it is this same kind of "expectation" you mention...that is also used to destroy human individualism and initiative through peer and family and now 'societal" and community pressure. No thank you...you and your kind need to mind your own business....
No, absolutely not. I was talking about all possible expectations. We're always expecting other people to behave in one way or another, and we're always expecting them to probably know what we in turn expect their expectations to be. If that's too tough to grasp, then please see Niklas Luhmann for more infotainment.
What progress as has been achieved has never come about by a "community" but through the individual creativity of the human mind acting alone, or trading in the "commerce" of ideas with others who are also like minded individualists.
Think of scientific communities for a second!
The autopoietic communities you describe do not like "individualism" at all. Liberals especially have some kind of arrogant, neo-religious belief system going on that everyone else is just simply stupid and naive but them...and that as the superior ones, the Liberal elitests with the most progressive ideas...then have a right to pass laws and policies to regulate the behavior and commerce of the rest of us....to then save us from ourselves.
You're putting in my words ... it's getting silly. Frankly, Luhmann can't explain sociation, so how could he possibly move from autopoietic people (everyone of us is such an autopoetic system) to larger social systems which are equally autopoietic? I've never promoted such closed communities where everybody would have to bow down and accept the rules as they are - quite the opposite! So please note the difference between a sociologist's DESCRIPTIVE statements and your NORMATIVE woes.
You can hide behind, and use all those extraordinary utopian phrases your sociologists can create in their ample spare time, but the reality is that behind such "nice" words...is a draconian police state, that must exist...to make everyone obey the rules of the "community" to make it work (for a while) for the good of "all."
Now that's just paranoia. We're tribal animals. The situation decides. Some of us are able to think more critically and independently than others. Or would you say that integrity, intelligence and self-criticism were the status quo? I've never promoted such a stupid and ignorant kind of collectivism, so please stop your accusations IMMEDIATELY!!! This is just stupid and a waste of time.
In Europe criticizing one's society is quite a popular game.
By the way...I can't find and have never run into the word "sociation." Do you mean association, or socialization? Or is it a term referencing society in some way? Is that a European word that is not a part of the English language? Try googling the word "sociation" and tell me what you come up.
Once again you should've done your research better before starting to rant and lash out. Sociation is a sociological term: how do single players cooperate and create a community? How do societies come into being?
I take it that you are in university training...and as such, you are subjected to not the real world...
And that's just bullshit again. I've just graduated, and quite successfully so. If your limited view can't grasp anything else than Ayn Rand, then you're going to misunderstand lots of people out there - in the real world. Now you'll probably have to downplay lots of my statements (or the University of Zurich or whatever), without considering the language barrier. Then that's just ignorance on your part.
And it's a common and very, very stupid mistake to believe that students were less exposed to the real world than, let's say, assemblymen. It's so tremendously stupid that I even refuse to talk with people who would come up with such non-arguments.
You know nothing about Zoroastrianism. ...and its embarrassing. And....do you think that Zoroaster used the word "liberal" at any time in his life? Show me the word "liberal" in the Gathas...I dare you....
I've now decided to ignore the rest of your posting and quit. You're definitely a manic.
End of discussion,