Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:
>
> At 04:56 PM 8/6/01 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >CB: I'm still in agreement with Ken's statement, but asking why isn't this
> >obvious. ? You are saying that even a lie or misrepresentation requires
> >that the meaning of the lie be understood. I agree.
> >
> >I still don't feel informed of something new that I didn't know already
> >when it is said that communication is done to be understood. If Habermas
> >says this , I agree, but don't see how it is profound or a philosophical
> >incite. Seems common sense , not philosophy.
>
> It is one thing to say it, it is another thing to believe it, and it is
> another to demonstrate why it cannot be otherwise without resorting to some
> sort of pathetic ontology.
>
This whole thread has not made much sense to me, partly for the reason Charles gives, and I don't see, in this case, why there is any need to state or argue a commonplace. And that gives me an inkling (not a thorough grasp) of why Ken's position (and Habermas's, if it is his) bothers me so much. There is simply nothing to be said about communication as a subject, and to pretend that there is is a block to needed communcation. You have to start out with the only interesting fundamental question of the 21st century: how may a class consciousness develop among the working class of developed capitalist nations? And clearly the answer to that does not lie in study of communication methods or the nature of communication, which can only be a diversion.
Fuss over communication seems to be derivative from fuss over epistemology -- and epistemology is pretty clearly a pseudo-science.
Carrol