>No, this is merely contingent on the community of speakers have an
>adequate vocabulary for doing physics and geometry. Look at the Borg,
>surely they do science?
Right, but there is only one perspective. The relation isn't communicative because there is no one to communicate with. But I'm not a borg expert.
>That's irrelevant. There is no one true theory of property any more
>than there is one true theory of why some humans have religious
>beliefs. Thus there is at least one context of social significance
>where the ideology/normativity distinction won't help and to go meta
>invites interminableness.
Ok, so you're a decisionist, a theoretical pluralist. I can deal with that. I mean, as long as you give reasons for whatever theory you are proposing. Habermas can't deal with this, which is why he's so critical of Agnes Heller.
The difference is easily expressed: Habermas, THE Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (1987) Heller, A Theory of Modernity (1999).
Both agree that social theory must be formulated scientifically though. I agree with both of them. Poetry is important, but I think there is a difference between the two.
>But as even those of us who are sympathetic to H's views have been
>saying, the ISS is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for
>co-ordinating social action.
That's true, and I don't think Habermas ever maintained that the ISS was a necessary or sufficient conditions for coordinating social action.
ken
"question capitalism!"