> > mein gott! "We cannot 'understand' the 'what' - the semantic content
>of the
> > systematically distorted expression--without at the same time
>'explaining'
> > the 'why'--the origins of systematic distortion itself."
>========
>Yes, but nothing precludes that [the explanation] from being
>'distorted' as well.
Right, Habermas calls this pseudo-consensus. Habermas argues, against Gadamer, that a critical theory does not fall into the trap of thinking that consensus is actually free from systematically distorted communication, because agreement must take place on the level of semantics and grammar. A grammatical agreement is beyond the immediate linguistic mastery of the subjects participating in a dialogue, it must be confirmed social theoretically. Habermas takes a two-pronged approach here, the hermeneutic *and* the depth hermeneutic - linguistic mastery and communicative mastery. Agreement can be reached *because* of distortions, but such an agreement is 'false' if it can be demonstrated that coercive means were afoot without the participants knowing it.
ken