File spoon-archives/habermas.archive/habermas_2001/habermas.0101, message 10

Subject: Re: HAB: From Colonisation to Compromise
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 08:42:34 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 11:49:42  matthew piscioneri <> 

> >In both instances we shift from 'the unknown' to the known. But in >this 
> >shift,there is also a profound shift in the way in which we >relate to the 
> >symbolic order. The former is paranoid, frighteningly >authoritarian 
> >(premodern) - the symbolic as 'the other of the other' >and the latter, 
> >safe and cynical(postmodern) 'the other as subject.'

> I can't help but think about the status of the *we* in this comment above  
Ken. Are there deliberate undertones of an outcast or lost human nature in  
search of ....? I think on one level at least I can see why you might suggest a 
closer look at the relationship between JH & Hegel.

"We" are not alone. The speculative I is a disavowal of ghosts. For Habermas, a 
conversation between two people is a two-way conversation. With Lacan, it is a 
four-way conversation. So if I say "pork" when I intended "pig" my unconscious 
is saying something in a subtext: "I've just been to the butcher." I speak to 
the other and the Other speaks through me, so it is appropriate to say "we" 
speak... not to mention I speculatively think that my take on this is not a 
solitary one. The "we" is an attempt to solicit a response which might 
otherwise be cast off as opining.

> in the manner of Adorno? Or am I way off beam in thinking where you thoughts  
are speculating to!

Not at all. Adorno has had no small impact on my thinking, especially 
when thinking about Hegel, Adorno and Marcuse.


     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005