INTELLECTUALS, reason & al.

[MSalter1@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/07/97 15:25:09 GMT, Ralph writes:

<< For example, why does Kenneth Mackendrick write as if if he read
 too many theory books on drugs?  The debate on "myth and reason"
 has descended to a level of intellectual mutual masturbatuon
 unconnected with reality.  People like Ken are grounded not in any
 reality, but in discourse's discourse with itself.  I have no use
 for such people.
  >>
Since, both on this and the habermas list, I have crossed swords with ken;
and that Ralph has chosen not to attack my contributions, perhaps I'm
reasonably placed to put in a word of defence for Ken. Ralph is, I take it, a
dialectician as well as a materialist. I share his distain for writing in
which reflexivity, which should mean increasing social
self-awareness/accountability/democratisation etc, degenerates into discourse
about its self. Yet Ken's comments bridge both aspects; and i prefer to pay
him the respect he deserves by considering his ideas that fall into the
latter camp worthy of disputation. Otherwise, I don't respond. Perhaps
Ralph's expectations of direct reality, intuitively clear bypassing the need
for clarification, from a CT discussion list have a virtual or "as-if", i.e.,
imaginary quality to them. Personally, I come to this list as play, as
joisting, to disengage with my immediate lived-reality, and not to be judged
by someone-else's love of it. Keep it up Ralph AND Ken

Michael S