Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:34:58 -0400
Subject: Re: HAB: Absolute Subject in Endless Disagreement



--Boundary_(ID_cN4eidvoUY9ueYgkckoJkQ)

Matt,

Being a pragmatic liberal populist rather than an impotent elitist or 
radical, I prefer a form of democratic representation to overcome the 
'tower of babel effect' (democratic representation well-informed by 
communicative engagement with it's public, and the public being 
well-informed by communications with other publics). What I most 
dislike are intellectuals who seem to feel it is alright to speak 
'for the masses' but not 'to the masses'. These are the elitists and 
radicals (archetypal hypocrites being folks like Hardt and Negri, the 
authors of "Empire") who criticize 'trickle-down' elitism in global 
economics but then actively promote 'trickle-down' elitism when it 
comes to education and communication. What I mean is that their mazes 
of linguistic gymnastics are aimed strictly to impress other 
neo-Marxist intellectuals, who after some further intellectual 
masturbation, will hopefully go on to 'trickle-down' change to the 
masses (or 'the multitude' as Hardt and Negri have labeled 'them'). 
It's really quite laughable, the state of the global Left. In an 
ironic reversal of Marx's famous quote, Marx*ism* has become 'the 
opiate' of the elite, a religion of inner-dialectic (dialectic as 
monologue) which has disengaged from the reality of general 
experience and hence cannot communicate anything helpful to effect 
substantial change in the world.

But enough of my rant.. What do you think of "Empire"? If you're 
familiar/have an opinion..

And since I'm not familiar with Adorno, maybe you could elaborate a 
little for me on what his idea of "reconciliation" in the "quietness" 
is about..

Regards,

Tom


>Tom,
>
>Just to stir the pot a little: what's your feeling on the 
>destructive tower of babel effect if everyone's voice must be heard 
>(although Habermas is clear that he doesn't advocate the concrete 
>realization of such a form of life)
>
>>Are we doomed (as modern, 'absolute
>
>  >subjects') to an absolute subject of endless disagreement and
>  >alienation?
>
>Yes a little bit of quiet wouldn't go astray! Maybe in the quietness 
>would be the reconciliation Adorno theorized?
>
>MattP
>
>
>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: 
><http://g.msn.com/1HM501201/42>Click Here
>--- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

--Boundary_(ID_cN4eidvoUY9ueYgkckoJkQ)

HTML VERSION:

Tom,

Just to stir the pot a little: what's your feeling on the destructive tower of babel effect if everyone's voice must be heard (although Habermas is clear that he doesn't advocate the concrete realization of such a form of life)

>Are we doomed (as modern, 'absolute

>subjects') to an absolute subject of endless disagreement and

>alienation?

Yes a little bit of quiet wouldn't go astray! Maybe in the quietness would be the reconciliation Adorno theorized?

MattP

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here

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