This conversation is not going anywhere. Seriously, I think we are wasting our time. I don't know which social theory you are referring to, but no body denies that the world is not the same thing as talking about the world. No body is denying the independent existence of an objective reality. What I am saying is that the only way we can make sense of that world is the way we talk about it. Without that discursive-communicative context, the world does not exist for us. And your friend Rorty would agree with me, every discursive-communicative context has its own internal logic, own truth claims. Now, which part of this argument you are not grasping?
Manjur
^^^^^^^ CB: I 'd say that the internal logic of the discursive-communicative context you refer to , takes the form of a system of logic. And that system of logic does not change on the basis of its own internal logic. In all formal logics, plus ca change, plus la meme chose.
Rather it is in practice, and the contradictions that arise in the formal logic in practice that a _system_ of logic itself changes, that is only through practical-critical activity. The logic of revolutionary practice is dialectical, not formal.
So, culturism is true, yet, being determines consciousness,ultimately, after all.