judicial tyranny

Ian Murray seamus2001 at home.com
Thu May 17 01:00:03 PDT 2001


----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Grimes" <cgrimes at tsoft.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 12:25 AM Subject: Re: judicial tyranny


>
> Just a footnote the previous post. The concept of law as a rational
> system, self-consistent and free from internal contradiction, is
> precisely what Horkheimer and Adorno eschew in Dialectic of
> Enlightenment as the basis for a totalitarian system.
>
> Chuck Grimes
================== Well then we have to look at the meanings of contradiction[s] from the Leibnizian-Hegelian-Whiskerite genealogy; the non-compossibility of conflicting projects, goals, values, norms etc. that exist in any complex society. The law as practice cannot aspire to the kind of non-contradiction we find, in, say, mathematics or mathematical physics. In those disciplines non-contradiction is aspired to/achieved only with the humbling recognition of incompleteness; we live in a spacetime that is Goedelian at the very least. The "law" is always incomplete and exhibits only local consistencies; historico-contextually situated resolutions that never "finally" achieve permanence, nor the sort metahistorical "there is nothing further to dispute" "equilibrium". Tragedy/Irony in an open ended play/dance/battle of signifiers.

Ian



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list