Date: 	Mon, 27 Jan 1997 17:54:19 -0500
From: Kenneth MacKendrick <kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca>
Subject: a & h and d of e



hello mike,

> I can try to clarify any of this that's not well-developed or murky, if 
> there's any curiosity to start a thread that's not focussed so intently 
> on Habermas.

     i've got three questions, stemming from my dis-satisfaction with Habermas's 
reading of a and h in d and e:

1.  what gives adorno and horkheimer the "legitimacy" (for lack of a better term) to 
pronounce reality as unreconciled (this harkens back to my comment about the 
"magical dialectical wand.")

2.  does a and h argue this dissonance because it is experienced in the atomized 
subject - ie. the subject experiences reality as a contradiction.
and 
3. what kind of problems does a universalist argument for subjective atomization 
raise for the idea of understanding.
i have ideas about answers/questions to each of these but i'm curious to see if 
others have  run into similar questions.
ken