Urizen and Eros

[MSalter1@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/07/97 04:15:59 GMT, you write:

<< Michael writes:
 
 The whole idea of such
 > critique is step-bystep transcendence from within, rather than external
 > trashing. Since the object of critique is ultimately a mediation of the
real
 > life processes of society at large, then "escape" is forever problematic.
 
Ken replies

 I guess my not so well phrased point was arguing something similar - that
external 
 forms of criticism are theological - since they rely upon a notion of being
"other" 
 than what is.
  >>
Well certain there are theological forms of external critique, classically
when being a non-beleiver is equated not with non-conformity but with
heresy/depravity/possession by the devil etc.

Yet the forms of external critique that spring to my mind most easily are the
dogmatic stalinist who identifies any discrepancy with his/her own
preconceived position as - per se - a failure/deviation/betrayal etc., or the
liberal whose narrow view of rights as exclusively individualistic, negative
and confined to the civil and political domains, accuses any form of
collectivism (oriented towards substantive socio-economic rights) of a
violation of "freedom". 

Such critiques may rely upon some ideal whichis other than what wholly
prevails in reality, but I can't accept that they are per se theolgocal,
unless this term is extended to the point of meaninglessness.

Sorry if this is nitpicky or misses the entire point (which I suspect it does
but don't know how!)

Michael