INTELLECTUALS & THE DIVISION OF LABOR--SARTRE ET AL

[kenneth.mackendrick]

...I can see I won't be able to put off indefinitely my harangue against 
the current attack on the Enlightenment, which prepares as it did 
before the ideological basis for fascism....

Well said.
peace, anarchy, and reasonable accord,
ken

ps.  you can put your foot down now - you won't need to break it off in 
my ass (today).

pss.  i'm still reminded of a post by david scully some time ago - who 
reminded us that some of these mental exercises are all part of the 
fixture, which is certainly broken, simply because the tools we have 
to work with don't make it any easier for us.  the navel gazing attack 
on reason that Ralph despises comes WITH the reason that Ralph  
passionately and relentless defends.

Perhaps it may be interesting to begin a string which asks why 
"postmodernism" has struck a cord with so many... as Ralph asked 
many posts ago - why Heidegger and not Marx?  What is it about 
Foucault, Derrida, Kristeva, Irigaray, etc. that resounds with the 
psyche of the left.  What is going on here.  Perhaps it is NOT a drive 
toward fascism - but an honest and sincere attempt to take difference 
- our lived and actual differences - seriously.  Does this attempt 
necessarily pave the way toward totalitarianism?  I'm asking the 
question since I think to some degree the intent of many 
self-proclaimed postmodern writers is misunderstood.  I'm not sure 
people like Derrida are after the destruction of reason and the 
nihilism or totalitarianism that is intimated in some of these 
conversations.  Derrida is no anarchist, maybe it would be better if 
he was, and deconstruction seems, in a persistant kind of way, to 
avoid the issue of the actual well-being of humans, but why then do 
people read his work.  Personal interest?  Self-deception?  Latent 
authoritarianism?   Democratic urge?  Psychic termidor?