It's a Humpty Dumpty ism, but all truth knows that one replaces another and another in succession to maintain the position on the wall. Scrabblers pile the bricks and mix the mortar and then wonder why the wall is so high and out of reach.
On Jun 25, 12:31 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > A very apt version of the conundrum Gabby. I think we are dealing > with madness and consequently a rationality of the mad. Habermas was > slated for providing too much of an answer, thus becoming just the > next 'rule-giver', just another intellectual telling us what we should > do. I just want us not to have to scrabble about making livings and > get rid of the over-powerful. It just seems so damned difficult to > even try. > > On 19 June, 17:32, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't know. To think one can promote lying in a society is as naive > > as thinking one can promote truing the society. In the world you speak > > of, the child is encouraged to publically shout out that the Emperor > > is naked while being expected to quietly learn the taylor's job in > > their chambers. What is it you're really after? > > > On 19 Jun., 15:11, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Habermas is almost impossible to read, which is a great shame. > > > Academic critique of his work actually ends up rather like Gabby's few > > > lines, extrapolated to ridiculous length. He was gazetted into the > > > Hitler Youth at the end of the war, something that only goes to show > > > we can all end up serving perverse human interests. Francis' notion of > > > what might happen through wider communication and the possible > > > differences new technologies might bring to 'argument' is probably key > > > to whether we have a future or not. There has been a debate around > > > legitimation portrayed in academe as between Habermas, Lyotard, > > > Derrida, Foucault and others. My own view is that the insularity of > > > this debate (most people have barely heard of it and its protagonists) > > > is itself part of the problem. Press in the UK has been ridiculing our > > > unworthy politicians through expense claims leaked to one newspaper. > > > Today, Parliament has "published" the details under so much black ink > > > that we would know less had we been left to rely on official > > > "transparency" and we will get much the same when the Iraq scandal is > > > hidden from us next year. What we lack is honesty and substantial > > > links between this and its use in day-to-day actions. Many people > > > believe it is childish to look at work like this because the real > > > world is so dirty. I suspect the real childishness lies in fear we all > > > have of standing up to the bullying system, which we see as holding > > > all the cards We know bosses and politicians are bad, but are > > > generally weak-kneed in the face of power and easy enough to buy off > > > with a few trinkets and the threat of poverty if we stray into telling > > > the truth. Much as I like Habermas, I'm sure these days that work > > > like his is pussy-footing pisswitter lamenting our lack of courage. > > > > His academic critics often referred to him as 'the Professor' as they > > > felt he was advocating a system that had to be followed to put the > > > system right - perhaps they feared yet another righteous theory as > > > potentially Nazi or Stalinist, even if Jurgen was a man of the left. > > > Academe was wet-through with cultural identity garbage back then and > > > still is. I just noticed he was weak on science, long on unnecessary > > > explanation and broadly right on the destruction of what others termed > > > organic links. I was looking for an explanation of why people choose > > > to follow such stupid ways or get caught up in them. My own view is > > > this happens and is a result of the way we promote lying in our > > > societies. The current situation in Iran would be a good example. We > > > don't know whether the election was fixed to favour the > > > Maddinnerjacket, but there are ways to find out (properly conducted > > > and sampled polling) and it ain't what Kameni is doing, even if he > > > might be right about miserable Western interference. It's too hard > > > anywhere for a populace to shift through the dross to get at truth > > > because of liars and what is so easily hidden or flashed in front of > > > us as the good. In our world, the child seeking to shout out that the > > > Emperor is naked is already silenced. > > > > On 18 June, 20:32, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Jürgen Habermas is 80 today. He is one of the most influential > > > > contemporary thinkers in the areas of philosophy, sociology and > > > > cultural science:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habermas,_Jürgen > > > > > One of his most interesting works is "The Theory of Communicative > > > > Action." I find his analysis of the development of contemporary > > > > society interesting, particularly his analysis of the way modern > > > > society can be seen as an unequal dialectic between private, > > > > subjective "lifeworlds" and an ever more powerful "system." His > > > > thinking in this area is useful because it offers an explanation for > > > > some trends we observe in contemporary society, for example, our > > > > suspicions that we are being ever more disenfranchised, although, > > > > formally, we live in societies in which participation, representation > > > > and equality are established. Habermas sees the "system" as taking > > > > overweening power and thus becoming a source of alienation in the > > > > areas of the welfare state, corporate capitalism and the culture of > > > > mass consumption. The mass media plays a major role in this process. > > > > Political parties are also part of this "system." > > > > > The following passage is lifted from Wikipedia (the quotations are > > > > from TCA): > > > > > "In the end, systemic mechanisms suppress forms of social integration > > > > even in those areas where a consensus dependent co-ordination of > > > > action cannot be replaced, that is, where the symbolic reproduction of > > > > the lifeworld is at stake. In these areas, the mediatization of the > > > > lifeworld assumes the form of colonisation". > > > > Habermas argues that Horkheimer and Adorno, like Weber before them, > > > > confused system rationality with action rationality. This prevented > > > > them dissecting the effects of the intrusion of steering media into a > > > > differentiated lifeworld and the rationalisation of action > > > > orientations that follows. They could then only identify spontaneous > > > > communicative actions within areas of apparently 'non-rational' > > > > action, art and love on the one hand or the charisma of the leader on > > > > the other, as having any value. > > > > According to Habermas, lifeworlds become colonised by steering media > > > > when four things happen: > > > > 1. Traditional forms of life are dismantled. > > > > 2. Social roles are sufficiently differentiated. > > > > 3. There are adequate rewards of leisure and money for the alienated > > > > labour. > > > > 4. Hopes and dreams become individuated by state canalization of > > > > welfare and culture. > > > > These processses are institutionalised by developing global systems of > > > > jurisprudence. He here indicates the limits of an entirely juridified > > > > concept of legitimation and practically calls for more anarchistic > > > > 'will formation' by autonomous networks and groups. > > > > "Counterinstitutions are intended to dedifferentiate some parts of the > > > > formally organised domains of action, remove them from the clutches of > > > > the steering media, and return these 'liberated areas' to the action > > > > co-ordinating medium of reaching > > > > understanding".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Communicative_Action > > > > > I wonder how much the Internet (I'm thinking here of the burgeoning > > > > social networks like Facebook, as well as - in a very modest way - our > > > > group here and others like them, but also Wikipedia, search engines, > > > > etc.) are such "counterinstitutions." Certainly the nervous actions of > > > > the regimes in China and Iran in recent times would seem to reinforce > > > > such views. > > > > > Francis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
