> objective way through theoretical inquiry. This is why critique, which is
> already part of self-reflection is necessary. This is always dialectical,
> it is taken more or less, sometimes we want to learn and sometimes we don't
> (reflective vs. non-reflective learning). How to we encourage the learning
> process which is immanent to our sensory perception? That's the question.
> And it *must* be solved on a rational level because there is no other way.
Not all critique is dialectical; sometimes it's pre-dialectical. If a definition of dialectics was possible, it would be something like a critique of the historical forces which condemn us all to being critics, a.k.a. shoppers in the global mall, hunting for use-values and ending up with exchange-values. I'm also very skeptical about calls for abstract "learning" which are tied to no less abstract notions of rationality and problem-solving. This isn't how aesthetics happens, this isn't how friendships or community happens. Even the most moral morality just isn't moral enough to orient ourselves in this insane total system.
-- Dennis