tower of babel
On Jun 25, 2:01 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
