Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:43:20 EST
Subject: Re: HAB: Who is really interested in JH's works?



--part1_187.5a30b97.29d52ec8_boundary

In a message dated 3/28/2002 9:07:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
gary-AT-gedavis.com writes:


> you don?t see recognized Habermas scholars
> making the least sign of effort to support this medium as a
> place to foster genuine interest in Habermas's work on the
> ?Net, through even brief notes of approval when thoughtful
> postings happen (Why would they *want* to subscribe?). One
> could think that either the serious readers of JH aren?t
> attuned to The global medium of communication or the Spoons
> venue is beneath them. 
> 
> I?ve expressed *my* interest in hearing from other engaged
> readers (last month), but this was met with silence (apart
> from a couple of spontaneous *reactions* to my posting,
> rather than new expressions of enagement).  
> 
> Frankly, I feel a little foolish attempting to contribute
> thoughtful discussions, since I don?t get much expression
> of interest in what I post (or the fact that I'm giving
> time to this venue), let alone text-immanent reply or
> contributions in kind. 
> 
> 

Perhaps the so-called habermas scholars have been silenced by their 
university system, or by the paranoid system in which contributors to 
listserves have to live in fear of their past posts being called up for 
further digestion!!!  Both of these are of course nonsense.  More than 
likely, many people have difficulty applying habermas
to everyday contexts.  Tho, I see no difficulty, Habermas is directly 
relevant to the interpretation of interaction, particularly in distilling 
discrimination and harassment, or deception and distortion, in their everyday 
interaction.  Which reminds me of our last
tet.  Although I was ashamed when I actually read your post intertwining the 
strategic and communicative action practices, I was more baffled by Habermas' 
apparent signal to us that intrumental rationality had some how been removed 
from the ethics of communicative action so that we are now unable to include 
the analysis of situational conditions in our own autobiographical 
understanding of the context of our speech acts and must further virtualize 
them in a universality alienated from all empirical considerations, which 
Habermas' tendency towards the nonempirical, meaning oriented, end of action 
considerations has led us.  But, that won't matter to you since strategic 
action or any kind of action in the capitalist corporate nexus is grist for 
the mill! As long as the mission is accomplished and the job done, eh?
In any case, my take still is that the reason for so little communication 
about Habermas is that so few have actually read and understood him, and even 
fewer in his own theoretical and historical context.

FWelfare

--part1_187.5a30b97.29d52ec8_boundary

HTML VERSION: