>we have both accused or criticized our interlocutor for not being serious
>enough about trying to understand and trying to be understood. we have
>criticized each other for failing to live up to the demands of the Ideal
>Speech Situation. We have invoked the ISS whether we think it can be
>achieved all the time or not. Whether we think Habermas is a turd or not.
Yep. Habermas is most convincing on that particular point, and, as you say, vindicated all the time. I'm mostly with you on all this, Kelley, but that's neither here nor there. What is perhaps relevant is that the ISS was inevitably immanent - yet neither understanding nor agreement was reached (much less coordinated action, natch).
A Habermasian diagnosis as to what was missing in the discussion (constituent/procedure-wise) would make for edifying reading, I reckon. You or Ken game?
Cheers, Rob.