Jordan Peterson debate on the Gender pay gap, Campus protests and Postmodernism - General

The Frankfurt School wiki page isn't a good source. IIRC it was a battleground page during Gamergate so its filled with a crap load of dead links, misinformation and poor sourcing. [editline]25th January 2018[/editline] Its still a busted mess today.

peterson's a fucking idiot, let's send an even bigger idiot on to debate him so he looks competent

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdEbOzcN1U[/media]

I'm aware the conversation has moved on, but its rare that I get to talk about critical theory on this board so im taking the opportunity. re: Derrida is a Marxist. Tudd, i think you are *almost* there, but a still off base. For example, the way you are reading your quotes of derrida assume that Derrida thinks he is taking up Marx's mantle as a Marxist, but the whole point is that he he wants to take up Marx's mantle as a sort of critical gadfly which troubles accepted and naturalized aspects of culture. So he isn't a marxist (because he doesn't think that economics determines all social relations, nor does he make the case that communism is a just future, or that revolution is needed, or anything like that). He is the 'spirit' of Marx in the sense that its that classic deconstruction maneuver between presence/absence, the Derridiean concept of trace and spectrality. For the unaware, its just a really big point about why binaries are bad, and how nothing is really gone, but kind of lives in this afterglow (like how your parents might die but always be with you, or how after slavery there is still an after-life of racial discrimination). This is why Specters of Marx focuses so much on Francis Fukuyama's declaration about the end of history (the fall of communism, the expansion of liberal democracy, etc). This is, by the way, also a critique of Marx's end of history! (i.e: once we get to communism we will reach the 'perfect' society and there will be no need to continue evolving because we have reached peak society). So yes, Derrida wants to take up the mantle of a voice which is dissatisfied with the status quo, but that doesnt make him a marxist. Your quotes pretty much say this. Your first quote he explicit distances deconstruction from Marxism, only saying that it shares a certain 'spirit' with it. Your second quote sounds like Derrida is saying he is a marxist, but you need to read the foonote that comes a page after this in chapter 3 to understand what he means. Footnote 9, Derrida writes: [quote=Derrida]But what does “to radicalize” mean? It is not, by a long shot, the best word. It does indicate a movement of going further, of course, and of not stopping. But that is the limit of its pertinence. The point would be to do more or less than “radicalize,” or rather something other, for the stakes are precisely those of the root and its presumed unity. The point would be not to progress still further into the depths of radicality, of the fundamental, or the originary (cause, principle, arkhe¯), while taking another step in the same direction. One would try instead to go there where the schema of the fundamental, of the originary, or of the radical, in its ontological unity and in the form in which it continues to govern the Marxist critique, calls for questions, procedures of formalization, genealogical interpretations that are not or not sufficiently put to work in what dominates the discourses that call themselves Marxist. Not sufficiently in the thematics and in the consequence. For the questioning unfolding of these formalizations and of these genealogies affects almost the whole discourse, and in away that is not just “theoretical,” as one says. The stake that is serving as our guiding thread here, namely, the concept or the schema of the ghost, was heralded long ago, and in its own name, across the problematics of the work of mourning, idealization, simulacrum, mimesis, iterability, the double injunction, the “double bind,” and undecidability as condition of responsible decision, and so forth. [/quote] The TL:DR of this quote is: by radicalize, we mean ask questions, but don't ask the same questions or seek the same answers. Derrida loves playing language games, so I can understand how you might read/misread him, but also be aware that derrida's language games are also a reason Derrida isn't a marxist, because he is very interested in semiotics and linguistics and Marx did not give a flying fuck about that stuff--he thought it distracted from class struggle. One last comment about who is and isn't a Marxist: If all it takes to be a Marxist is to accept a premise of Marxist writing, then we would conclude that [URL="https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/"]Lee Atwater[/URL] was a marxist because he said that "Karl Marx [is right]… the real issues ultimately will be the economic issues" ? Or is [URL="https://www.thedailybeast.com/steve-bannon-trumps-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist"]Steve Bannon [/URL]a Marxist because he inherits the 'Leninist' playbook? I think your answers to this question is obviously no, and so too should we be skeptical if we wanna group Derrida or the deconstructionists, or any other brand of postmodern or post-structuralist thought in with Marxism. And if that doesnt convince you there is a literal metric-shit-ton of Marxists who critique deconstructionists, and postmodernists, and post-structuralists, and so on forever.

I've been really busy and have only just gotten around to writing this, sorry. [QUOTE=Tudd;53076990] Now having said those two points. I think it is fair to say that using marxist thought-process to change or analyze the culture is a real behavior that can be objectively labeled as such. So yes, I am not going to freak out if someone describes something as "Cultural Marxism" depending on what they are accusing as such. If something like intersectionality comes up, and it is indeed collectivizing people according to social classes, instead of classic economic marxist ones, but achieves the same oppressor vs oppressed marxist conclusions using similar critiques, then I am not surprised people use the term so often. Even if the people using terms like intersectionality don't even identify or think about marxism explicitly, it's just hard to ignore the parallels to Marx's "critique" popping up again. I just would reframe from generally using Cultural Marxism because I don't believe the grand-scale conspiracy theory attached to it, but please let me know what parts I laid out seem wrong here. [b]Now linking it to Postmodernists:[/b] I am going to work with Derrida because it is the one person I have knowledge from my classes I have had with professors going over him, and actually having done my own research on him. Though it is limited to reading Spectres of Marx, but alas, that is the book highly relevant to why I think linking Postmodernists like Derrida to Marxist thought is both fair and the clearest example others on here can search and review.[/quote] Flameon made an excellent post above mine covering pretty much all the bases on the Marxism - Postmodernism - Critical Theory points so I'm gonna be lazy here and mostly defer to that. I think some points Zyler made on Marxism - neomarxism are also pretty good. The thing is with Critical Theory though, is that it again is a wide subject. The first generation of Critical Theorists were undeniable Marxists for the most part - The second generation (Habermas and the rest), not so much. Habermas pulled further away from Marxist ideas as time went by (and also reflexivity), yet he still published Critical Theory. I don't really know about the third generation so I can't say, but I'd imagine they followed the path of Habermas (a devoted critic of postmodern thought if there ever was one). Critical Theory is different to Post-Structuralism, which is different to Postmodernism (though there is overlap), which is different to critical feminism etc. They differ in their acceptance of emancipatory narratives or even grand narratives at all. This is why it's entirely dishonest to refer to critical theory as pomo, or any of this as just Marxism, because it's an entire field of academia with often fervent internal opposition. The classical Marxists don't like this, the Critical Theorists have the leading criticisms for that, the post structuralists don't believe in that other part etc etc. Marxist [I]influence[/I]? For a chunk of it, yes. There is no catch all for this stuff though. [quote]Just for clarification; What are you referring to "simply retarded for reasons above"? I am lost on what you are referring to here.[/quote] Well there isn't really any 'central tenet' of postmodernism because it depends who you read. It isn't a properly coherent school of thought like Peterson wants it to be.'Incredulity towards meta narratives' is often cited. It certainly isn't something you can summarise by reading one of Derrida's books (or not in his case), or as a single term; 'the rejection of 'objective truth', like Peterson says. That just isn't something anyone ever said or implied. Again, Flameon makes a good point as to why it's ignorant to present Derrida as someone who simply applies a binary of oppressor vs oppressed to social structures. That's the sort of conclusion you'd arrive at having read 5 out of context Derrida quotes [quote]I would really need to see where Peterson says this. Not that I can't accept it, but I also find it hard to believe he wouldn't have read the first-hand sources, despite clearly reading books at rate that would indicate doubt to your claim. I imagine he wouldn't go after such philosophers without atleast gauging one of their books for himself. Which I at the very least I expect Derrida he would read, since this guy seems to be the most pronounced of the postmodernists, that even other professors I know have mentioned it.[/quote] I'll try hard to find this for you, but I am 100% sure he has said so either in a Lecture video or an interview because I've seen it myself and it's a very common criticism. What I can provide you with right now however is that in his new book, no mention of Postmodernism ever cites Derrida or Lyotard or Foucault, only Hicks' book. He also claims that “Derrida described his own ideas as a radicalized form of Marxism”, which is patently false, and I'm sure you would agree having read [I]Spectres of Marx[/I]. [quote]The problem is having just read as much on the book as I can, I would need to read it before I take some of the points you made as solid. Because for example: The "Postmodernism began with Kant & Rousseau" seems abit heavy-handed when the book's own description on uses terms like "roots in Kant" and not "began with Kant" which I would be fairly interested on what roots the author would suggest, but would understand that "began" would be just plain wrong. I think language is important here, and I guess I would rather need to see direct quotes to argue in good faith on a book I haven't read, rather than rely on the synopsis points you made. [/quote] That may have been a bit direct, but the self-published books starting point is the Randian interpretation of Kant. I'm sure you know as well as me how that would undermine your theory. By Peterson's own interpretation of 'postmodernism' derived from this book, he would easily fit the bill himself. Again, you'd have to read the book yourself, but the scholarly reviews can give you a good taste. Further on the credibility of Peterson (despite his misrepresentation of C16 and doxxing students on twitter), here is a [url=https://imgur.com/a/rPAO6]made up citation in his new book[/url]. [quote]I mean I don't doubt there are reviews critical on it, but I am guessing you are talking about scholar reviews? Because it's reviews in general from stores (I know, random consumers, not professors) and google seem relatively in high-praise.[/quote] I do mean academic reviews sorry. Academic reviews in which it has been absolutely lambasted. [quote]Well you can describe it as modernist in a way with how traditions are being broken down, but I think this is far more accurate of the underlying thought process of the SJW-type movements: [/quote] My point being Marxist thought is undeniably modernist. It gives you a who you are, why you are where you are, and a future. Are the students following the ideology of Mao, or is it this new unpinnable ideological mess? Schrodinger's Peterson says somehow they are both at the same time. To notch CT or postmodernism down to 'marxism but social' glosses over all the context and nuance described above, while completely missing base on the Philosophical traditions each thing is rooted in. We may have wrangled out a definition of what someone means when they say 'postmodern neomarxist' but it's simply too vague to mean anything useful. Who's ideas are they talking about? Which philosophical discipline? Are they even a Marxist? There is overlap, there is disagreement, and there is almost complete objection, so this secret leftist cabal undermining our values doesn't really make any sense. Like I said earlier too, a lot of these 'postmodern writings' were observations - what Lyotard saw, for example, NOT endorsements of theory. [quote]I am not sure why this is hard to understand; Certainly not like reading a translation of Derrida. Laymaning it reads, "They believe western culture is masculine-focused, and thus using previously established logos methods of explaining truths is inherently flawed, and only serves to maintain the oppressing system."[/quote] [quote]I think you are getting hung up on why Phallogocentric is in there, and it is pretty obvious he is saying "Remember, Western Culture is Phallogocentric." because he is clearly trying to illustrate how Radical feminists, who believe patriarchal-systems of oppression, see western culture. Which I think is true for those people. [/QUOTE] From my understanding here the reference to phallogocentric is a direct reference to a misunderstanding of something Derrida once said. All throughout this text, he makes a point that anyone complaining about their position is simply ungrateful for the fact that they live in the West - Black people are the '18th wealthiest group on the planet' for example, and the reason for this ungraciousness is Postmodern thought, forcing them to believe the false notion of oppressor vs oppressed.... Which is just ridiculous. Oppressor vs Oppressed isn't a Marxist concept, nor is anyone noting the relationship advocating for 'bloody political violence' like he alludes to multiple times in that article. Marxism wasn't when people started to become dissatisfied with the status quo. The jump from Marx = Stalin > some nebulous philosophical cloud of conflicting leftist ideas (pomo neomarxists) > today's SJWs (corrupted by academia), is [I]very[/I] stretched, especially when the data suggests that [url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/06/10/study-finds-students-themselves-not-professors-lead-some-become-more-liberal-college]there is no great leftist indoctrination happening at universities, faculty staff act as moderating influence on students[/url], [url=https://www.denverpost.com/2008/03/27/professors-dont-rub-off-politics-on-their-students/]and students radicalise themselves.[/url] I've been banging the same point home here so I'm sorry about that, I think our original points were lost. If I haven't replied to a bit it's probably because I wasn't disagreeing with that notion in the first place.

[QUOTE=Tudd;53079812] [b]Believing in hierarchies does not make you an authoritarian.[/b] I guess you haven't talked to an Libertarian who believes in Capitalism and Hierarchies.[/QUOTE] Just as wishing for equality of outcome through legal requirement is inherently authoritarian, believing that hierarchies are inherent in humanity and thus must be maintained is, in fact, authoritarian. Any time you don't let humans just do what they do, and instead attempt to define them or make them follow your model is authoritarian.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53083645]Just as wishing for equality of outcome through legal requirement is inherently authoritarian, believing that hierarchies are inherent in humanity and thus must be maintained is, in fact, authoritarian. Any time you don't let humans just do what they do, and instead attempt to define them or make them follow your model is authoritarian.[/QUOTE] Who is saying that hierarchies must forced upon the populace? The argument is that trying to destroy all hierarchies won't work, not that we ought to enforce the hierarchies in an authoritarian fashion.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53083649]Who is saying that hierarchies must forced upon the populace? The argument is that trying to destroy all hierarchies won't work, not that we ought to enforce the hierarchies in an authoritarian fashion.[/QUOTE] Well you don't actually know it won't work, you just assume it won't work based on what we think we know about human behavior (a focus on aggression and selfishness than on man's social communal nature) and history. By saying that it is natural and unavoidable you are, in a sense, telling us that we can't/shouldn't get rid of hierarchies, arguing in its favor essentially. Instead, we should just say "fuck what we do with hierarchies, let's just get people above a minimum standard and hierarchies can exist beyond that, or maybe they can fade away as society changes/humanity evolves"

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53083661]Well you don't actually know it won't work, you just assume it won't work based on what we know about human behavior and history. By saying that it is natural and unavoidable you are, in a sense, telling us that we can't get rid of hierarchies, arguing in its favor essentially. Instead, we should just say "fuck what we do with hierarchies, let's just get people above a minimum standard and hierarchies can exist beyond that, or maybe they can fade away as society changes/humanity evolves"[/QUOTE] You seem to be making an argument from ignorance. Part of the point of Peterson's argument is that any society that has tried to get rid of hierarchies ended up in authoritarianism, and not coincidentally, because humans are biologically predisposed to work within hierarchies. The argument is against trying to force no hierarchies more than it is to keep the current hierarchies.

[QUOTE=Il Principe;53066229]Bleugh. Jordan Peterson's grasp on biology is about comparable to 9/11 truthers grasp on physics. His, and his supporters, lack of knowledge about marxism is abhorrent. It's just a boogey-man to them. A buzzword.[/QUOTE] Week late here, but how does your first statement in any way relate to your last? That's like stating the earth is round based on the fact that a pregnant woman's belly is also round and it's therefore profound.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53083665]You seem to be making an argument from ignorance. Part of the point of Peterson's argument is that any society that has tried to get rid of hierarchies ended up in authoritarianism, and not coincidentally, because humans are biologically predisposed to work within hierarchies. The argument is against trying to force no hierarchies more than it is to keep the current hierarchies.[/QUOTE] Meh, you're making a natural fallacy. I don't see it as a fallacy to admit that you and I don't KNOW the facts on this matter (NO ONE DOES). Your argument is inherently putting weight on the claim of keeping hierarchies, because you believe they are natural, you aren't just "arguing against forcing no hierarchies" you essentially are arguing FOR hierarchies because you think they CAN'T practically be gotten rid of. I'm not arguing for or against hierarchies, except for need hierarchies. I don't believe people should be able to die of starvation or homelessness if the resources exist to protect them, EVEN IF IT IS THEIR FAULT. Can you really not see a humanity full of people conditioned to accept all sentient creatures/other humans no matter their actions as part of their "in-group" and thus deserving of a minimum standard of happiness. A world of lesser hierarchies? I don't think hierarchies could theoretically be gotten rid of, because you can always compare two concepts based on some reference (like need, for example) and say that one has "more" and the other "less". But I do think that hierarchies shouldn't be so large between humans, I don't think we need to be like that at all.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53083645]Just as wishing for equality of outcome through legal requirement is inherently authoritarian, believing that hierarchies are inherent in humanity and thus must be maintained is, in fact, authoritarian. Any time you don't let humans just do what they do, and instead attempt to define them or make them follow your model is authoritarian.[/QUOTE] Okay. Please, right now, describe a system where things can actually [B]GET DONE[/B] with 0 hierarchy? Oh what's that? You're spouting nonsense? [editline]26th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Tetracycline;53083694]Meh, you're making a natural fallacy. I don't see it as a fallacy to admit that you and I don't KNOW the facts on this matter (NO ONE DOES). Your argument is inherently putting weight on the claim of keeping hierarchies, because you believe they are natural, you aren't just "arguing against forcing no hierarchies" you essentially are arguing FOR hierarchies because you think they CAN'T practically be gotten rid of. [B]I'm not arguing for or against hierarchies, except for need hierarchies. I don't believe people should be able to die of starvation or homelessness if the resources exist to protect them, EVEN IF IT IS THEIR FAULT.[/B] Can you really not see a humanity full of people conditioned to accept all sentient creatures/other humans no matter their actions as part of their "in-group" and thus deserving of a minimum standard of happiness?[/QUOTE] This isn't directly related to the concept of a hierarchy. Hierarchy doesn't mean abuse, it doens't mean "destroy the lower class". Hierarchy means structure. You're radical misunderstanding of the concept is because you view things through a radical lense that should be tempered.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53083698]Okay. Please, right now, describe a system where things can actually [B]GET DONE[/B] with 0 hierarchy? Oh what's that? You're spouting nonsense?[/QUOTE] I just opened my post up by saying that equality of outcome is bad and you think I'm advocating 0 hierarchy? I'm advocating that hierarchy should neither be defended nor destroyed.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53083707]I just opened my post up by saying that equality of outcome is bad and you think I'm advocating 0 hierarchy? I'm advocating that hierarchy should neither be defended nor destroyed.[/QUOTE] What does that even mean? You're clearly arguing against it as a concept, but right here you say "Should just be accepted"

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53083712]What does that even mean? You're clearly arguing against it as a concept, but right here you say "Should just be accepted"[/QUOTE] I'm not arguing against hierarchies as a concept...Can you show me a quote where I said that hierarchies are even inherently authoritarian on their own? I DON'T believe that hierarchies necessitate force, and I don't believe they are bad. I am against arguing for or against their existence because humanity should just float into whatever they want to do instead of being guided by the assumptions people make based on history.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53083714]I'm not arguing against hierarchies as a concept...Can you show me a quote where I said that hierarchies are even inherently authoritarian on their own? I DON'T believe that hierarchies necessitate force, and I don't believe they are bad. I am against arguing for or against their existence because humanity should just float into whatever they want to do instead of being guided by the assumptions people make based on history.[/QUOTE] Sorry man You're literally not making sense "Floating into whatever we need" will contain a hierarchy of some variety, it's literally necessitated both by cooperation and competition, the natural state humanity will always exist.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53083720]Sorry man You're literally not making sense "Floating into whatever we need" will contain a hierarchy of some variety, it's literally necessitated both by cooperation and competition, the natural state humanity will always exist.[/QUOTE] You're making appeals to nature...I'm literally arguing that we shouldn't be making assumptions and you're trying to take some intellectual high ground by arguing in favor of "the natural state humanity will always exist". [editline]26th January 2018[/editline] That's pretty much Jordan Peterson in a nutshell, though. His entire worldview is based on presumptions and he then attempts to take the intellectual high ground.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53083723]You're making appeals to nature...I'm literally arguing that we shouldn't be making assumptions and you're trying to take some intellectual high ground by arguing in favor of "the natural state humanity will always exist". [editline]26th January 2018[/editline] That's pretty much Jordan Peterson in a nutshell, though. His entire worldview is based on presumptions and he then takes the intellectual high ground.[/QUOTE] Okay Hierarchy is essentially a form of "organization". You're saying that we'll just be able to "float into whatever we need to" into some form of "Hierarchy"(as you said you're not arguing against them) that isn't a hierarchy but will still accomplish the same goal of a hierarchy? What are you even talking about

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53083723]You're making appeals to nature...I'm literally arguing that we shouldn't be making assumptions and you're trying to take some intellectual high ground by arguing in favor of "the natural state humanity will always exist". [editline]26th January 2018[/editline] That's pretty much Jordan Peterson in a nutshell, though. His entire worldview is based on presumptions and he then attempts to take the intellectual high ground.[/QUOTE] An appeal to nature means you are saying that because something is natural, then it must be good. It's falsely arguing from a positive claim of fact to a normative claim of ought (i.e. the is to ought fallacy). That isn't what's happening here. No one is making any normative claims about whether hierarchies are good or not. The argument is that the biological makeup of humans (a claim of fact) predisposes us to work in hierarchies. It's similar to the argument that our biology predisposes us to live in groups.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53083747]An appeal to nature means you are saying that because something is natural, then it must be good. It's falsely arguing from a positive claim of fact to a normative claim of ought (i.e. the is to ought fallacy). That isn't what's happening here. No one is making any normative claims about whether hierarchies are good or not. The argument is that the biological makeup of humans (a claim of fact) predisposes us to work in hierarchies. It's similar to the argument that our biology predisposes us to live in groups.[/QUOTE] If you don't think hierarchies are necessarily good, just part of human history and darwinistic psychology (I agree) then why do you also have to argue for their maintenance BECAUSE of that? Does that not seem a little bit illogical? If you don't think it's good then why do you argue for its maintenance? Like I said, we should take a neutral stance on hierarchies and see how humanity moves throughout the future. I just believe that arguing for their maintenance, just like arguing for their dissolution, is authoritarian because it tells us what we will do (which really means what we should do unless you expressly admit that it is not what we should do). I do agree that it seems very difficult to envision a humanity without hierarchies, but that's because we come as the result of billions of years of darwinistic psychology, our society is built upon these hierarchical concepts, and technological limitations. [editline]26th January 2018[/editline] All I ever meant to argue here is that telling us what we will/should do (arguing for or against hierarchies) is inherently authoritarian because it doesn't take into consideration the necessity of free decision by the future of humanity.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53083812]If you don't think hierarchies are necessarily good, just part of human history and darwinistic psychology (I agree) then why do you also have to argue for their maintenance BECAUSE of that? Does that not seem a little bit illogical? If you don't think it's good then why do you argue for its maintenance? Like I said, we should take a neutral stance on hierarchies and see how humanity moves throughout the future. I just believe that arguing for their maintenance, just like arguing for their dissolution, is authoritarian because it tells us what we will do (which really means what we should do unless you expressly admit that it is not what we should do). I do agree that it seems very difficult to envision a humanity without hierarchies, but that's because we come as the result of billions of years of darwinistic psychology, our society is built upon these hierarchical concepts, and technological limitations. [editline]26th January 2018[/editline] All I ever meant to argue here is that telling us what we will/should do (arguing for or against hierarchies) is inherently authoritarian because it doesn't take into consideration the necessity of free decision by the future of humanity.[/QUOTE] ANY structure we take will be a form of a hierarchy, that's what we're trying to get across to you dude

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53083836]ANY structure we take will be a form of a hierarchy, that's what we're trying to get across to you dude[/QUOTE] I don't know how you can possibly know that, especially when there exist other organizational structures. Such as: [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterarchy[/URL] [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsible_autonomy[/URL]

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53083850]I don't know how you can possibly know that, especially when there exist other organizational structures. Such as: [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterarchy[/URL] [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsible_autonomy[/URL][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In a group of related items, heterarchy is a state wherein any pair of items is likely to be related in two or more differing ways. Whereas hierarchies sort groups into progressively smaller categories and subcategories, heterarchies divide and unite groups variously, according to multiple concerns that emerge or recede from view according to perspective. Crucially, no one way of dividing a heterarchical system can ever be a totalizing or all-encompassing view of the system, each division is clearly partial, and in many cases, a partial division leads us, as perceivers, to a feeling of contradiction that invites a new way of dividing things. (But of course the next view is just as partial and temporary.) Heterarchy is a name for this state of affairs, and a description of a heterarchy usually requires ambivalent thought... a willingness to ambulate freely between unrelated perspectives.[/QUOTE] Apply that to a society, I suppose it's possible and I'm not stating that it's impossible, but I don't see it as likely, and calling me an authoritiarian for that is stupid. [QUOTE]Responsible autonomy is the study of organizations and how they work, it is often suggested that there are only three ways of "getting things done": hierarchy, heterarchy and responsible autonomy [1]. This theory is called triarchy theory. In a management or organizational system based on responsible autonomy, an individual or a group has autonomy to decide what to do, but is accountable for the outcome of the decision. It might be called ‘no rule’, or rather, no external rule. The existence of accountability makes responsible autonomy similar to anarchy (self-organized society). Responsible autonomy requires clearly defined boundaries at which external direction stops.[/QUOTE] Sounds like something that exists, but not on a political scale. An anarchicly organized system will probably break down in a larger numbers I'm sure.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53083850]I don't know how you can possibly know that, especially when there exist other organizational structures. Such as: [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterarchy[/URL] [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsible_autonomy[/URL][/QUOTE] Just cause a theorist thinks it up does not make it a viable political structure. I mean, hell, the best example your own article gives of a heterarchy is hierarchical to an extent. [quote]A heterarchical network could be used to describe neuron connections or democracy, although there are clearly hierarchical elements in both. [/quote] As for the responsible autonomy, while in principle that again seems nice, the examples it points to also give way to hierarchy, perhaps intentionally or otherwise. Adam Smith's economic system ultimately had hierarchy in it insofar as he was an unapologetic classist and allowed for top down control under certain circumstances in order to best run the economy of a nation. The system of peer review also is only similar to this theoretical system of responsible autonomy in principle. In practice what happens is that a peer review by a respected person is worth that of 2 unknown people, and peer review can go wrong in the case of severe echo chambering like in the case of the [url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair"]Sokal Affair[/url].