>Speech makes differentiations possible. It is the medium of our
social lives. It is only
> in language and through language - or some form of internalized
symbolic
> action - that objects appear to us at all - as anything other that
Robin
> William blurry image in that Woody Allen film the name of which I
forget.
> To distinguish between a supernova and the sound of bones snapping
is a
> cognitive activity, i.e. it is a rational activity (how else are we
to
> understand reason if it isn't linked to our everyday cognitive
processes...
> I'm not into this idea of reason being high and mighty, neither is
Habermas).
>
> This is a really elementary point. Human beings coordinate their
activity
> on the basis of communication. No, not solely [should i have to say
> that?!?]. When we do so, build into the structure of speech - which
is
> onto-genetic... if this term doesn't fit Party loyalties, then let's
say
> that built into the means of production and reproduction - is a
> presupposition that someone that once told you what the words meant
(a
> parent for instance), will understand them when you repeat them back
to them.
=======
I have no truck with iterative learning of language, but the above is
makes the normative/non-normative irrelevant. There is communication
about the normative, but to say communication is normative doesn't get
us very far at all. What's the difference between saying communication
is formative and normative, especially on a planet loaded with
non-human communication systems.
>
> >"Private property is normative"
> >
> >"No, it's ideological"
> >
> >"No it isn't"
> >
> >"Yes it is"
> >
> >...and on it goes....
>
> Until someone points out that private property is a social relation,
and
> then the person that denies this is either an idiot (Habermas's
term, not
> mine [I have a page ref]), dogmatic, or stunned (in the best
possible sense
> of the term).
========
That's irrelevant. There is no one true theory of property any more
than there is one true theory of why some humans have religious
beliefs. Thus there is at least one context of social significance
where the ideology/normativity distinction won't help and to go meta
invites interminableness.
> >the ideology/normative boundary/opposition is at the point of
> >diminishing returns, imo.
>
> Well, apply the law of diminishing returns to itself and then we can
start
> over.
========
What will the reintroduction of the maintenence of the
ideology/normative distinction do to change people's minds about the
need for parametric social change? How will it help nurses struggling
with hospital administrators, or nuclear waste technicians arguing
with regulators/legislators who don't know physics or theologians
debating philosophers, or enviro's arguing with corporate executives?
>
> >Isn't that what collective action and
> >majoritarianism in political movements are all about? Politics
ain't
> >like science and it's undecideable whether homo idioticus can
> >'transcend' politics.
>
> And yet, we possess the capacity to coordinate our action
consensually. Go
> figure, eh?
=======
But as even those of us who are sympathetic to H's views have been
saying, the ISS is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for
co-ordinating social action. Nor do we need it in order to motivate
people to challenge the ongoing performance of the
communicationl/behavioral norms that are constitutive of capitalism.
It 'defines' an absence, that's all. It imposes no obligations on
anyone; the very paradox of non-coercivity.
>
> > > I have to get myself a bumper sticker and a car to go along with
> >this; "End the 'end of ideology thesis' now!"
> > > ken
> >========
> >How about "question capitalism"?
> >Ian
>
> What's the difference?
>
> love,
> ken
==========
Less words, easier intelligibility-catchier, lower printing costs!
Ian