>I guess this is played out. I think that the Habermasian theory you lave
>laid out--I don't consider whether it is H's--faces massive, obvious,
>catastrophic objections. I have repeatedly set them forth, and in my view
>you have not even begun to reply. You regard these objections as trivial
>misunderstandings. Maybe we are just talking past one another, but I think
>I'm done. It's been fun (really!), but I do have to get back to work.
Sigh. My apologies for my complete failure to communicate. Yes, back to work. Whenever theoretical obscurity abounds, there will always be Habermas to set the mutilated text of tradition right.
discursively, ken