Logic of identity

[bob scheetz]

----- Original Message -----
From: "matthew piscioneri" <mpiscioneri@hotmail.com>
To: <frankfurt-school@lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: Logic of identity


> Bob,
>
> looks like my clarification post didn't make it. I badly worded the
> following in the first post:
>
>
> >    you think your quotes suggest marxism escaped  the critique of
reason?
>
> I tried to clarify this to read marxism DIDN'T escape H & A's critique.
> Apologies.
> -------------
> >which brings to mind a recent profession of yerz:  "Me also fairly
> >intolerant of bloody religion."  I've observed there are a few very lucky
> >people who have no metafisical need, perhaps you and adorno are two?
>
> metafisical "needs" are fine. The opium head has a need for the opiate (of
> religion). What sort of socialism would I be pushing that didn't
> acknowledge/tolerate the existential needs of people? Let the masses have
> their icons and rituals if it salves their existential misery. Marx
forbid,
> sport would have to be banned also :-).
>
> metafisical needs and their satisfaction have to be kept apart from
recourse
> to metafisical realities, that's all. Who sits on top of the enlightenment
> pile IMO? Darwin. Critical social theory starts after Darwin. metafisical
> needs indicate something about the human animal. A pragmatic critical
social
> theory would be foolish to ignore such a need in any blueprint of desired
> social re-organisation. Making/using such a need as an impetus for social
> change may be a worthwhile strategy, although in the end I think it
probably
> just makes for more false consciousness. And here's the BIG rub. False
> consciousness (collective ideals?) are essential for social integration.
An
> always/already component of a social order. So it all depends which "false
> consciousness" you want: religion, class solidarity & revolutionary
> subjecthood, consumerism, nationalism, democracy/enlightenment. Of course
in
> BLD's like the U.S and Australia there is a mish mash of most of these
> chimeras. Humans appear to be a myth-making, story telling type of an
> organism.
>
> Stories about metaphysical entities/forces just don't do it for me,
although
> I am partial to Capra's dancing pools of energy metaphor. What I like
about
> the poetic side of radical physics is the dissolution of the
> perceptual/sensory certainty in which the human animal moves. Given
> different sensory equipment (U/V, sonar capacities) our world views
(methods
> of oppression? ;-))would be vastly different, I would suggest.
>
> Regards,
>
> MattP

philistinism ;-)

bob