Preemption stands for conflict unlimited: the potential for peace amended to become a perpetual state of undeclared war. This is the "permanent state of emergency" so presciently described by Walter Benjamin.
Only in regard to well-structured situations is it possible to take actions that can be rationally defended. (Closed)
In reality more facets of a situation can always be taken into account (Open)
It is simply a matter of initial assumption that makes possible the prescriptive approach
The point is to discuss these assumption and argue why this is not weak or a waste of time but essential this is the hope and aim of Habermas. The assumptions are not necessarily at the level of cultural form (hence the argument against Habermas assuming he is advocating fixed cultural forms is a straw dog), discourse ethics can be intersubjective - related to a subjects experience of a form, this occurs though enhanced communication and care for all participants.****(9307)
Prescriptives can continue to impose material solutions on masses (market driven science)
The conditions of operative closure in which deterrence functions qualifies it as an autopoietic system by Maturana and Varela's definition.
Preemption's conditions of openness mean that it does not fit the definition... Preemption...actively incites an otherness to itself to emerge. It self-produces by producing its own alterity : its logic needs the otherness of the terrorist in order to legitimate itself affectively and in order to self-actuate. Otherness is immanent to its logic. Since preemption is an open ontogenetic system productive of otherness,. See Felix Guattari, Chaosmosis, trans. Paul Bains and Julian Pefanis (Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1995), pages 33-42.
Preemption's conditions of openness mean that it does not fit the definition... Preemption...actively incites an otherness to itself to emerge. It self-produces by producing its own alterity : its logic needs the otherness of the terrorist in order to legitimate itself affectively and in order to self-actuate. Otherness is immanent to its logic. Since preemption is an open ontogenetic system productive of otherness,. See Felix Guattari, Chaosmosis, trans. Paul Bains and Julian Pefanis (Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1995), pages 33-42.
Massumi, B. "Potential Politics and the Primacy of Preemption." in: Theory & Event. 10, 2, 2007. (English).
`
Re Flow <>Knowledge
The constructed system (both abstract (knowledge), and human activity) must protect itself from any assumed 'other' as it appears to threaten it's survival..
there is pressure to act first...
to classify/quantify -
Already available technical solutions come to dominate the problem definition process. (D'arcy)
1. A chain of automated systems based on binary distinctions from search engines to profiling to security and arms delivery systems utilise:
there is pressure to act first...
to classify/quantify -
Already available technical solutions come to dominate the problem definition process. (D'arcy)
1. A chain of automated systems based on binary distinctions from search engines to profiling to security and arms delivery systems utilise:
Exclusive Closed Logic (Institution(Foucault) +
$$$-Diagnostic Technologies (Expert Systems + Fear based Profiling) $$$ +
$$$ Arms +Security Profits (Free Market (Chomsky)) $$$ +
$$$Normalised Territorial Drugs (Alcohol)(Massumi) $$$
so it targets out in an organised way at the 'unpredictable enemy'... ?it does this in a predictable way... ?
Programs/Systems are designed to protect us from potential threats, knowledge/expert systems to predict the future...
Such class-ification and knowledge systems are connected to automated responses.
=(Non-Reflexive)
These systems organise incoming signals in ways that fit their projections?
We have a set of automatic systems that diagnose and prescribe?
Profit can be made from such prescriptions
Diagnosis can be driven by prescription: (Drugs/Machines/Arms Delivery Systems)
Diagnosis can be driven by fear=construction=profit
= profiling systems designed to cause conflict and fear
= profiling systems designed to cause conflict and fear
2. The intuitive self imagines the constructed system as monster and lashes out..?
We have a split - re:
What is safe?
Only in regard to well-structured situations is it possible to take actions that can be rationally defended. (Closed)
In reality more facets of a situation can always be taken into account (Open)
It is simply a matter of initial assumption that makes possible the prescriptive approach
The point is to discuss these assumption and argue why this is not weak or a waste of time but essential this is the hope and aim of Habermas. The assumptions are not necessarily at the level of cultural form (hence the argument against Habermas assuming he is advocating fixed cultural forms is a straw dog), discourse ethics can be intersubjective - related to a subjects experience of a form, this occurs though enhanced communication and care for all participants.****(9307)
Prescriptives can continue to impose material solutions on masses (market driven science)
A few "Interpretives" can claim we can view the world any way we want so what is the problem.
(strong constructivism)
Individualise Solutions & Problems) re Negotiate Positions.
Is the flattening of the plane a move in the game... an attempt to disarm the 'other' that is perceived as the "system"
IS the conseqence a drive to endless complexity from one side and a love of simple binary caracature on the other ?
A rational discussion of assumptions (meta narrative?) , a post-structuralist preemptive battle of presumed irreconcilable world views what counts as education?
No comments:
Post a Comment