From: Samuel Lawrence Binkley <sbinkley-AT-pipeline.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 14:43:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: Re[2]: >Habermas is Habermas, 'nough said.


On Thu, Mar 14, 1996 7:09:02 PM  at ANTOINE GOULEM wrote: 
 
>The quotes that Joe picked to corroborate his claim that  
>Kant and Hegelare in some way part of a tendency which culminated in  
>Hitler suffer from a gigantic argumentative gap.   
 
If I have followed this thread correctly, the first mention of fascism,
hitlerism and such was presented in reference Lyotard's comments on
habermas's essentialism (as the "subject line" suggests) of  communicative
action as always and inevitably implying 1. rational forms subject to
verification and 2. movement towards the telos of consensus.   
 
Lyotard calls this "totalitarian" in "post modern condition" and elsewhere.
 by this he meant nothing about hitler, racism or the new right, but
strictly in the sense of exercising control over linguistic play.  
 
are you guys still considering the questin of fascism within the framework
of linguistic interaction, or have you moved on into some kind of terrain.
If the latter is the case, you should probably set those terms, because I
think they are missing and leading to misunderstandings. 
 
______________________ 
Sam Binkley 

     ------------------