Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 05:40:17 -0400 (EDT)
To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: BHA: Science, theology and witchcraft


In a message dated 18/08/97 08:54:45 GMT, Colin write:

<< we do we have something approaching a  real "disagreement" on this list?
 


I have to say that Michael's comment:
 
 >The alternative of theological reverence for any
 >particular author and glib dismissal of other on the basis of cavalier
 >misreadings is an amusing exemplification only of the problem.
 
 Is amusingly off-beam (from my particular vantage point).
 
 For one thing, RB's reply to Adorno (as Michael puts it):
 
 >RB retorts that subjectivity must "in some sense" be seen as
 >"grounded" or "overreached" by objectivity. 
 
 To see this as advocating reductionism seems to me to be a classic case of
 misreading, and cavalier at that. I mean given RB's synchronic emergent
 materialism reductionism is blocked. Besides, reductionist or not, what is
 incorrect with this slight reformulation of Adorno's position? After all,
 RB's non-transgressible limit is to truth not the dialectic. I

MICHAEL REPLIES

I don't think RB advocates reductionism, indeed the turn towards dialectics
represents the opposite. Read in context, I was questioning whether some of
the dualistic oppositions that characterise earlier non-dialectical phases of
the CR project had been entirely overcome or consistently integrated - a
point that despite his other objections Louis, for example, accepts as a
valid question. Read in context, your interpretation of my own position not
supported by the evidence.

I would also question your claim we cannot seperate "truth" in DRC from the
dialectic
itself, especially given that RB himself characterises the evolition of DCR
as a totality, i.e., including its conceptions of limits, truth-criteria etc)
in explicitly dialectical terms 1993; 299-308
 
COLIN:  Also to extrapolate from RBs claim that Heidegger is one of the
greatest
 20th century philosophers to say that said person is influential upon RB is
 really overstretching the point. The current Manchester United football team
 is undoubtely one of the greatest this century, but that hardly means I
 support them! (a die-hard Newcastle United fan I am afraid) RB makes a
 similar claim about Wittgenstein, but I doubt many would say old Ludwig was
 influential in shaping RB's approach to philosophy, it's simply one of those
 phrases he likes and it stands as a mark of recognition of Heidegger. To
 then go on to claim that RB was influenced by Heidegger one would have to do
 lot more work. I mean compare how critical RB is about Heidegger to how
 complementary he is about Adorno.
 
MICHAEL REPLIES

What I find questionable is your idea that in a highly rationalistic book
about the kind of rationality (social/ontological/epistemological etc) that
characterises dialectical thought, we can draw a direct analogies between
RB's glowing endorsement of another philosopher, with the non-rational
commitment to a football team. Whilst I think this strategy is analagous to
how - in my experience - too many newcastle supporters act whilst supporting
their team playing away from home, it has questionable status in theoretical
discussions. To discover whether or not I am overstretching the poiny would
require a far closer weighing up of what can be said both for and against my
claim that there is something odd about how RB has drawn upon the
irrationalistic heideggerian wing of the phenomenological tradition rather
than the Husserlian scientific rationalist one which I would have thought RB
would have found more congenial. I could support by argument with further
textual references where RB accepts the validity of certain heideggerian
analyses such as "equipmental character" of the social world if I thought
that there was a good chance that these might be thoughtfully responded to in
the rational, scientific spirit of CR. Yet the relationship between
dialectics and phenomenologies of different kinds with different political
implications) remains a serious point in which textual evidence needs to be
looked at really carefully before trashing responses are fired off. It is an
issue not only for myself but for others on this list (see Ralph's posting
too). I doubt whether, it can be resolved by either analogies with, or
exemplifications of, the rivalries between different groups of football
supporters. Having done a phenomenological thesis on how the lived-experience
of football hooliganism from Millwall fans is variously interpreted, I have
come to appreciate something about the difference in kind between theoretical
endorsements of philosophical positions, and fthe kind of commitment involved
in prefering one football teams (or type of curry etc) over another.

COLIN:  And on this respect it seems to me that RB is much closer to Adorno
than
 Heidegger and his critiques of Adorno seem really minor. And after all, such
critiques are surely necessary, since we wouldn't want RB to display
 "theological reverence" toward Adorno would we?
  >>
MICHAEL REPLIES

A close reading of the postings on this topic would show that what I and
others have sought to do is to use Adorno as a foil for RB and vice-versa
precisely in order to differentiate, and thereby perhaps more adequately
characterise, what is distinctive about their respective positions; and what
we can learn about the pros and cons of both as contributors to a far larger
and long-standing tradition in which Hegel is a relative newcomer. No
football supporter-style dismissive sarcasm or theological reverence for
either A or RB is evident, implied or called for. 


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---