Date: 	Tue, 23 Dec 1997 01:16:27 -0500
From: "kenneth.mackendrick" <kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: Truth


On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 20:08:22 -0500  
dmwri1-AT-student.monash.edu.au wrote:

> Thought so. It's funny that Sartre managed to be 
condescended to, patronised and belittled by both Heidegger 
and Adorno, who represent interesting poles in Sartre's own 
thought. Why is Adorno a pole in Sartre? Because he is a 
possibility for Marx-derived enlightenment.

I'm not sure Adorno is a pole in anyone.  Negative Dialectics, 
despite many of its problems, is theoretically hyperfluid (I'll 
bet he would just loved to hear that!).  Relentless negativity 
does not find a resting place in any foundational or 
absolutist or fixed constellation of philosophy.


> > Commitment rests upon an absolute.  Critical thought rests 
on the negation of what is not autonomous.  I am advocating 
freedom over stance.  The law is commited.  And if we follow 
Derrida, whose books sell for less than those of Adorno, one 
might see that the law is a mystical force - a metaphysical 
force - not too far from commitment.

> And if we follow Derrida, that freedom might also be play. 

I'm sorry, and this is just a pet peeve, but I'm a little tired of 
the idea of play.  It is sloppy.  Just sloppy.  If only the world 
was a little more playful... it would be a better place.  Maybe 
we should replace all the nuclear warheads with crayons... 
maybe everyone should get free scoobie snacks....  hmmm.... 
even Gadamer is on this bandwagon.  Narrative, play, 
dialogue - what ever happened to having an argument.  What 
about frustration and anger...  These things are just as 
characteristic of freedom, freedom proper, as play.  I like 
Albrecht Wellmer's suggestion that the idea of emancipation 
is incoherent unless we have an understand of what freedom 
might be.  And right now I'm not interested in playtime (unless, 
of course, it is a critique of dogmatic or rigid philosophical 
forms...

> Yes, it's a strong critique. But do you think Adorno has a 
better understanding of praxis, better than the 
practico-inert/engagement model?

I think Adorno had the courage to refuse what was demanded 
of him by political forces.  His theoretical engagement is a 
practical engagement.  His writings don't make any sense 
outside of this understanding....  Adorno was continuously 
attacked by students and peers for not "participating" and 
"advocating" concrete political practices.  Of course this is an 
interesting paradox isn't it?  - because in this light - criticism 
becomes "mere criticism" and the practice of critique is 
deemed irrelevant to politics.  It is an interesting aporia - 
generated by the demands of an unfree society.  So I think 
Adorno is on very solid ground.  He is the critics' critic.  And 
this is engaged - completely.

> > Kenneth, the derriere-garde of the avant-garde.

> Does that make you a batty-man?

Butt of course.

It's a metaphor, if you know what I mean.  How have you 
been?

Kenneth