Re [6937]: Hi Jairus. We haven't discussed Sartre before. Maybe the following questions will lead to such a discussion. > Sartre's *Critique de la Raison Dialectique*, esp. the first volume. There *is* a problem of intelligibility and this book is the single most important attempt to respond to it. < What precisely is this problem of "intelligibility" from _your_ perspective? How is the "translucidity" of the dialectic developed? If a theory is only intelligible through totalisation, as distinct from taking each idea in isolation, how are we then able later to micro-critique a theory or explain a specific micro- particularity? You also referred in [6937] to your field studies that were based on interviews of corporate representatives. Isn't there a problem of intelligibility in terms of interpreting that information? Should the "praxis-process" of those corporate representatives be interpreted as Malthusianism? What is the role of praxis in the over-coming of intelligibility? Does praxis *necessarily* overcome intelligibility? How would you answer Istvan Meszaros's claim that the *Critique of Dialectical Reason* "turned out to be the greatest Kantian work of the twentieth century"? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:09 EDT