Ethical foundations of the left

[Kelley]

At 10:09 PM 7/26/01 -0700, Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:
>At 07:19 PM 7/26/01 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>but it's sort of scary to see ken doll taking on my roll defending 
>>Habermas. banging your head on a steel wall yet, ken? :)
>
>
>I've decided that I'm split: I'm an orthodox Habermasian *and* an orthodox 
>Lacanian. This week I'm defending Habermas, Lacan, come later. Despite all 
>of my thoughts here - I think Habermas is wrong on a good many issues - 
>but he has a dreadfully powerful mind, and he's a hell of a synthesist. If 
>one is inclined, my most recent posts to the Habermas Spoon list (in the 
>archive) are more critical notes. Justin was on to it, but hadn't 
>formulated the problem precisely (that idealizations are local, not universal).

you can look in the lbo archives for the same
http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/9910/0418.html
<...>
>If this isn't persuasive, and one still wants to remain Habermasian, 
>consider that the idea of communication free from domination is 
>*conceptually* incoherent.

why?


>This should put an end to it. If you can't conceptualize it, one can 
>hardly defend that it is a necessary moment / structure of speech (I 
>agree, the presupposition can be made, in a practical discourse, but not 
>invariantly so)

this from someone who digs lacan's notion of lack.

okeydoke!


>[although Habermas doesn't argue this is invariant, he notes that the 
>lifeworld must meet the world of institutions half-way... but then that's 
>just a problem for my argument *and* his isn't it?

i'm not quite sure i understand what the part in brackets means, but if it 
means what i think it means, then no, i don't think that's his argument. 
the lifeworld has its own rationalizing logic that is different from that 
of the institutions of the market and the state.


>However, with that being said, I'm going back to an orthodox Habermasian 
>perspective, and I'll be defending that for the next few weeks.
>blessed critique,
>ken

neurotica,

kelley