From: "matthew piscioneri" <mpiscioneri-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: HAB: Linking Theory & Practice
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:23:23 


Dear List,

I want to take this opportunity to run together several issues which have 
arisen for me following the HAB/FREUD debate, and especially Gary's emphasis 
on the enlightenment potential of education.

First query:

FvG:... a philosopher who makes generalisations in a specific field
such as Psychology or Anthropology or Sociology without 'following
through', i.e. grounding such a critique in detail, is inevitably
going to be accused of dilletantism.

GD: I agree. But this doesn't apply to Habermas. First, he doesn't
make generalizations; he developments discursive themes as part of a
fallibilistic research program related to other research programs.
Psychoanalysis can be and has been treated as a research program.
Basing the emancipatory interest in the educational interest in
enlightenment is part of a distributed research program in
moral-cognitive development.

MP: I am wondering whether FvG isn't hinting at an issue to do with 
Habermas's *fallibilistic research program* as well as the recurring claims 
to his work having a *work in progress* status, which continues to puzzle 
me. Whilst I sneakingly concur with Tom Rockmore that this methodology 'is 
also in part a conscious strategy to parry possible criticism' _Habermas on 
Historical Materialism_ (1989, viii); I am more given to wonder about the 
status of the validity claims these collective speech acts of Habermas's 
raise when qualified by the fallibilism, and the WIP character of JH's 
analysis oft-pointed to.

To be concise here; what is the impact of Habermas's professed fallibilism 
and WIP on the validity claims his own theoretical speech acts raise; and 
doesn't the fallibilism realistically present in much practical discourse 
diminish the *moment of unconditionality* JH is so fond of?
______________________________________________________________________

My second query of Gary is more flippant, and relates as much to comments 
made previously to Ken :

K: And if that is the case, how did critical theory acquire knowledge
about this life?

G: Isn't that like asking how a child acquired interest in learning?
If the child doesn't know, is the desire to learn thereby undermined?
*Critical Theory* acquired this "knowledge" as the history of
philosophy acquired this knowledge, you know JH claims.

K: As far as I can see, simply because enlightenment posits a telos:
autonomy, solidarity and so on, doesn't
mean it would be a 'good thing' to achieve it.

G: And freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

K: The 'dream' of the enlightenment is autonomy and happiness...

G: Ah, sooo right.

K: ...but this dream is a dream - a wish-fulfillment.

G: No, it's a lot of work.

K: Fundamentally, it is unrealizeable.

G: Since you can "fundamentally" only speak for yourself, let me
happily hope that, fundamentally, you're wrong. As for the rest of
humanity, hope is ultimately all we have. Less than ultimately, we
have lots of resources. We need leadership (Christien? Bush?). We
need Time (Hurry on, educational reform! Hurry on, constitutional
democracy! Hurry on, health sciences! Etc.) [Hurry on, bioscience! I
want to be productive beyond 100!]

and more recently:

G: The telos of communication is understanding because growth of
understanding is generative (emancipative and enlightening)

MP: My other research interest is to do with the ethics of AI development 
(www.ethics-of-technology.net), and the increasingly sophisticated 
*achievements* in biotechnology, which - incidentally - Habermas touches on 
in his essay 'Technology and Science as Ideology', commenting that:

"...the self-objectivation of man would have fulfilled itself in planned 
alienation - men would make their history with will, but without 
consciousness" (_TRS_ 1977, p 118)

This foundational commitment to *consciousness* I think ties in with JH's 
foundational commitment to the self reproduction of the human species 
(keeping in mind Ken's point above: ' As far as I can see, simply because 
enlightenment posits a telos: autonomy, solidarity and so on, doesn't mean 
it would be a 'good thing' to achieve it); and raises delicious 
philosophical questions - in my mind at least - about how far a commitment 
to Enlightenment through the mode of education might commit one to.

JH has transformed the generative framework of traditional CT by 
appropriating the Piagetian/Kohlbergian models to support the ideals of 
self-formation and self-edification (individual to societal as initially 
outlined in the 'Development of Normative Structures' and confirmed in 
_BFN_). If - as Gary suggests - education is the key to the achievement of 
the Enlightenment dreams, what's to argue against the Huxleyan (_Brave New 
World_)application of a bit of biotechnology here & there!!!! After all, an 
ideologically-driven education agenda is a form of social engineering,  the 
objective of which, finally, is to change the brain states of people. Why 
not then a little Enlightened genetic tampering, for example, as the young 
foetuses roll off the conveyor belt a la Huxley ;-)?

I trust this gets read in the manner in which it was written. Personally the 
idea of a bio-technologically achieved Enlightenment leaves me cold. 
Reflecting on why this is the case a quasi religious notion of *free* 
volition seems to be important. Anyway, if this slightly tangential 
excursion provokes anyone to examine questions to do with an essential 
naturalness or humanness in the process of Enlightenment then it's been a 
worthwhile thought experiment of sorts.

mattP

>From: kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca
>Reply-To: habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>To: habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Subject: Re: HAB: Linking Theory & Practice
>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:03:57 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
>
>
>On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:31:47 -0800 (PST) Gary D <gedavis1-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > GD: ... On the one hand, aestheticization of educational issues is not
>connoted by Habermas' work in any way...
>
>Agreed. But this is precisely the problem. Tradition is tradition only 
>insofar
>as we constitute it as such. In other words, we view our 'past' through the
>eyes (the Other) of our future. It is always a forward looking retroactive
>imposition. This 'seeing' is grasped by an aesthetic-imaginary moment. It
>simply cannot be otherwise. Although we want to avoid the temptation of
>reducing education to mere aesthetics, it is the aesthetic moment inherent 
>to
>idea of education that makes it appealing (beautiful) to begin with... the
>distinction between rationality and romance is the cite of ongoing 
>contention,
>a stain (trauma/jouissance) that cannot be removed save through the
>discombobulation of the ego...
>
>ken
>
>
>
>      --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.



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