myth and reason, back to front

[MSalter1@aol.com]

In a message dated 08/07/97 14:00:30 GMT, :

<< Ken writes:
 > 
 > << What I wonder about all this is whether all criticism is implicitly a
form
 > of 
 >  mysticism...
 > 
 > I think the tendency to subsume all forms of critique to one model of
 > dogmatic external critique that over-generalises from its own prejudices,
is
 > itself dangerous.
 
 > Michael. S
 
 I came in the back door in order to demonstrate that Adorno is right.  
 Deconstruction, currently in vogue all over the place, misses this point -
since it 
 relies upon some degree of externality - defying any kind of interior logic
to things 
 and hoping to set criticism free.  In this way the postmodern project, if it
can be 
 characterized as such - is a theological project (not to mention positivism,

 pragmatism, hermeneutics, etc. as well).
 
 ken
 
  >>
In reply to Ken:

Well if your critique of decon is right then Adorno is wrong
, he too - in both negative dialectics and against epistemology, is very
clear about how phenomenological immanence/passive receptivity to the
contours of the non-identical object can only ever be a preliminary stage
leading on to a more active conversional relationship that carries forward
and modifies both sides of the concept/object subject/thing distinctions.
Hence his claim that immanent critique must be immanently critqued, and that
the latter leads to a position that - in one sense - graduates out of
immanence, a kind of transcendence from within - the possibility of which
must be presupposed from the start as with decon.

Yours anti-dialectically

Michael