Ron --
you say "I've always thought that Proprioception is one of the two great
20th century tracts on dialectics."
Could you please explain why you think so? I just don't understand this.
How can it be dialectical to say that the eighteenth century was just
"inadequate rationalizing after Locke & Descartes, & thus 'weakness' to
increasing industrial revolution" -- surely this is ideology of the most
flagrant and one dimensional kind? Olson says also that America is "the
inheritor of: a secularization which not only loses nothing of the divine
but by seeing process in reality redeems all idealism fr theocracy or
mobocracy, whether it is rational or superstitious, whether it is
democratic or socialism." (both quotes from 'Proprioception', Collected
Prose Ed. Allen and Friedlander, p.190) Dialectics is not about
"losing nothing". This is -cant-. Or perhaps not: if not, why?
Best, K
(Pierre: a straighforward Q: why should dialectics be left in the 19thC?)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|