> Of course, what, if anything, constitutes the original fullness which
> 'the
> individual' ridiculously yearns for? Sounds like modernity's
> secularization of 'the fall.' We are thus free to conclude there is no
> original fullness, nor lack...........
That would be the individuals who created the Parthenon or the Sistine chapel. They would have had to be "fuller" (i.e. closer to the "idea" of humanity) than the "complete emptiness" of "the fully-formed proletariat" where
"the abstraction of all humanity, even of the semblance of humanity, is practically complete".
"Modernity" has no logical space for the idea of humanity underpinning the claim. You can, therefore, reasonably conclude that the premises of modernity are inconsistent with Marx's so, if, as you do, you adopt the premises of "modernity", you will be "free to conclude there is no original fullness" in the sense that your conclusion will be consistent with your premises. This, however, isn't sufficient to make your conclusion "true".
The only "truth" consistent with those premises is "solipsism of the present moment".
The clinically narcissistic (and quintessentially "modern") Hume mistakenly thought he could avoid this with a little help from his like minded friends.
"There is no Algebraist nor Mathematician so expert in his science, as to place entire confidence in any truth immediately on his discovery of it, or regard it as anything but a mere probability. Every time he runs over his proofs, his confidence encreases; but still more by the approbation of his friends; and is rais'd to its utmost perfection by the universal assent and applauses of the learned world." David Hume, Treatise on Human Nature. (Treatise, Part IV, Section 1)
This epistemological doctrine is, however, inconsistent with the premises. Ditto for its "postmodern" equivalent.
Ted