<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: Ken Slanders Grossman</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF"> Hello everyone, Ken MacKendrick Writes Tues. Nov, 3/98: <TT>If class struggle is objective then it cannot be 'theorized' in the manner in which you categorize it ("the lever of historical change").  The logocentric / monological theorization of class struggle renders it a causal object which neglects a creative and undetermined subjective dimension (I'll defer here to Castoriadis, Zizek, Copjec, Heller, Lacan, and Salecl in case Derrida makes you vomit).  In other words - Marcuse's Great Refusal - an emphatic refusal - is part and parcel of a Hegelian praxis vs. a positivistic analysis of political economy.  But don't worry, don't let philosophizing get in your way - I'm glad Grossmann's work is able to inspire you (dare I mention jouissance?) Doyle Please define Emphatic for us Ken? Please Define Positivists as opposed to Marxist for us Ken? Please define logocentric for us Ken? Please define Freud's contribution to the mind for us Ken? Please define an acceptable role for science in your philosophy Ken? Ken writes Tues Nov 3/98 in Ethical suicide - from science to democracy: Thanks for the ref, I suspect we swim in different theoretical circles.  The problem with science is that it was and never can be pure world-disclosure.  There is always an emphatic element - an element which 'forces' its way into how the world *should* be.  It is no coincidence that the procedural forms of science are almost identical with the procedural forms of law an democracy (Habermas's writings on law and democracy are nice examples of this).  When you talk about Marcuse giving up self-contradiction this is similar to the democratic compromise (majoritarian rule).  This 'praxis' is offensive first, because procedures are ground in undeterminable variables (hence any formal procedure is tautological) and, if followed through, the reconciliation(s) achieved through democratic (slow) reform remain a dialectics under (procedural) duress. Marcuse's 'great refusal' is therefore an 'evil' ethical position.  He is saying 'NO!' precisely to violate and contradict the prevailing tendencies of scientific hegenomy (democratic or not).  For Marcuse to say 'yes!' this is an ethical or correct way of life is to commit ethical suicide.  To some extend Marcuse did this in his later work when he identified the kernel of liberation in the socialists women's movement.  He reified women and sacrificed the possibility of ethical responsibility. Doyle Please define evil for us Ken? Please define pure world disclosure Ken? Please explain how forces exist that should be Ken? regards, Doyle </TT> </BODY> </HTML>