Logic of identity

[bob scheetz]

> Maybe on a societal/universal level. there is still some room to move on
the
> level of the particular. Isn't part of the problem how to move from the
> particular to the general, anyway? You see I fall at the first barrier. I
> can't even be sure that contributing to the wider discourse of
emancipation
> that broaches collective action can be justified. The dialectic of
> enlightenment bites me on this one. So there's a bit of quietism going on
> there.

Matt,
     having just finished my taxes to the united states of israel (do'n my
bit for Iraqi freedom,  soon to add Syrian), am feeling particularly
qualified to say a thing or two on bad conscience.

      In marx isn't the "falsity" of consciousness relative to class?
..."false" for the oppressed when he adopts the ideology of the oppressor.
So "protestant ethic etc" for bourgeois is honest; false for proles.  But
revolutionary jesus (lib theology) is "good/true" for workers; jesus of the
poor, for peasants, etc.
And further, doesn't the dialectic require the sublation of antecedant
forms? ...progress require piety? ...require that us to carry our dead gods
with us?  indeed marx is (most) often read as xian allegory (and ridiculed
by the reactionary intelligentia for it).  and enlightenment begins (for
proles) with rousseau/babeuf/saint-simon.
     It certainly appears religion/art/story/history  have come to an end
for bourgeois.  They indeed have exhausted their verbum.  But the
world/species story may not end (ora pro nobis) with the apocalypse of
capitalism.

Maybe you and adorno should examine your socialist consciences, eh?

bob