> phronesis? outlining failures? oh my god! they're
neo-Aristoteleans.
Yup.
> but this certainly is not a claim that theory dictates practice.
Ok.
> clearly, then, the split subject is a universal. is that it?
Yes, subjectivity is split. It emerges as a breach. All other conceptualizations of the subject are either metaphysical or determinist. That is Zizek's claim against the postmoderns and the moderns.
> the deal is this, ken: you should try to keep the dog from
crapping on the yard to begin with.
What if you like the smell of dog shit?
> the air conditioner is really condensing.
Enter the Freudian unconscious. Take a bow, try not to slip.
> oh now ferpetesake this Real v. the merely imagined, where
does that come from? this is not what the Imaginary signifies
in lacanian theory is it? the Imaginary isn't merely imaginary
is it?
Class struggle is Real because it does not exist. In effect, class struggle is the violent attempt by subjects to deal with their failure. It is a symptom of the trauma of being alive. And it is possible, although difficult, to change this.
> firstly, what can you possibly mean by "failed"? was there a
test on this?
If I reach for my beer, intending to drink it and spill it on the table, I've failed to actualize my desire. So there wasn't a test, but there was a failure.
> are you assuming some sort of straight, easy path to the
promised land?
The road is long, there will be great suffering, and no one knows for sure where we are going, except the liars.
> feminism, imnsho, only appears to fail because we take the
advances for granted and, at the same time, start to see new
problems that need addressing.
You mean feminism was successful and there is no need for it any more? "Appears to fail?" Postfeminism? I think not!
> as for marxism, i can [because i must, but i'm pretty sure
i'm not sure] only say that you are brave and stupid to say
such a thing here.
?? I guess I slept in the day utopia arrived.
> theoretical interrogation is nothing more and nothing less
than bitching at each other is it not?
Sure. But turning theoretical interrogation into *the* democractic project is totally perverse.
> i still don't get where you find this proceduralism in his
theory. there are three levels to his argument coz hab ole boy
does like his threesums:
No, because he's a closet Trinitarian.
> so [habermas's] theory guides the process of
enlightenment, BUT NOT political practice whose aim is
phronesis, prudent judgment about strategy, the resolution of
practical, tactical questions, and the conduct of political
struggle. in other words, praxis involves phronesis but it is
NOT reducible to it.
Habermas argues that everyone who is not on board with communicative action is ideological. So everyone from Heller to Derrida is wrapped up in ideology. Ideological perspectives have to be liquidated from discourse because, go figure, they are ideological (asymetrical). This is a political practice. Habermas's book, the Phil Dis of Mod is a political tract against everyone who has either lived in Paris or read Nietzsche. It's kinda twisted.
> [though he adds public sphere as something yet to be
realized].
Hmmm... he argues in his later work that the public sphere has been institutionalized in the form of democratic constitutions. So it is already present, for the democratic. Funny side note - Habermas notes that democratic institutions relieve citizens of the burden of justificatory discourses.... and, to follow Horkheimer and Adorno, doesn't this really mean that enlightenment relives subjects of the burden of thought?
Modernity is only that which does not understand itself. Everything else is mythic or psychotic. It's nice to have a perspective that doesn't make any sense, eh?
ken