i don't much either. why hab gets reduced to communications theory and only that is beyond me. and aside from that, gee, do i have to say it a bizillion times: are people truly incapable of recognizing that its possible to read and understand a theorist and even defend him or her without necessarily agreeing with him or her, motivated more by sloppy interpretations of that theorist than anything else.
criminy! :)
kells (who is very much enjoying this back and forth! yay! my two fave philosophers going at it. i'm all aquiver!)