Noise Politics
Asemics concerns noise, but it sees noise as such, and it often promulgates noise, even in its silence, as its response.
Politics concerns noise, and it often promulgates noise, even in its silence, i.e., in its lack of response, as its response.
What is the difference?
Politics is still very much engaged in a discourse of the meaningful, but it has also to acknowledge the way it silences discourse. What occasionally becomes obvious is that silence leaks secrets.
Cover-up and overexposure serve to preserve meaningful discourse, but asemics often refuses discourse, especially of the meaningful sort.
Politics desires a basis for action as well as for non-action, but it does not yet acknowledge its own asemics as politics tends to ground action in discourse.
How so?
Discourse analysis tends to pursue the following types of dialectic:
1) Truth and truth, lie and lie, truth and lie,
1a) Fact and fact, fiction and fiction, fact and fiction ... ,
2) Narrative and narrative,
3) Intelligence and intelligence,
and so forth.
For example, cognitive dissonance is one of the latest diagnoses, as dissonance concerns noise, for the politics of noise, but noise, though it can often be volume controlled, ..., is not curable.
What is the difference?
Asemics is in all politics, and it makes no claim as to its coherence.
Politics risks coherence to maintain discourse. Its ability to acknowledge its asemics is yet to be.
