Page 30 [30]
28 | Tue Puitosopuy or Eco-Pouirics
about the reason of history and the historicity of reason. (We even had
to cheer at the scaffold.) Marx and the pragmatists that freedom is
produced by history: man creates ever more perfect weapons for the
defeat of necessity, i.e., for the “increase” of his freedom, i.e., for the
satisfaction of his needs. (‘This is a double distortion, but never mind;
as Burke writes, “In the groves of their academy, at the end of every vista,
you see nothing but the gallows.”)
‘The ”resolution” of the contradictions has in practice always meant the
violent suppression of one — or all — of the three fundamental principles.
For instance, the consequence of the mediation between the right of the
heart and the law of reason has made desirable the universal
commensurability of the possible objects of individual choice (refusing
necessarily incommensurable qualitative differences). The basis of the
conversion, for lack of a better alternative, became the suitability of
individual goods for enjoyment by “anyone”: ordinariness became value.
And demand presented itself as the unit of measurement: the extent of the
expectation awakened by the public promise of pleasure (the prostitution).
‘This goes together with tracing back the subject of freedom, i.e., the
conscious personality, to the subject of lust and the fear of death (both
ultimately irrational unshareable experiences). Here the emphasis of
interpersonal communication had to be shifted from the evaluation of
the ends to the marketing of the means. So, after the individual now
bore direct responsibility for his own wellbeing only, the automatic self¬
regulation of the communicative systems had to take over responsibility
for the maintenance of the cooperation expedient for the community.
Thus did man become ignorant and knowledge inhuman. ‘The choice is
free, but the heart is empty.
Finally, critical thought tore its own foundations to shreds, but could
no longer put them together again. It cites history before the court of
reason, but the trial never took place: the judges are still unable to agree
upon the basis of judgement. The point they reached is that the truth
of the judgment depends on the chosen laws of language use, the choice
of which is embedded in the life stories of the language users. ‘Therefore,
they can only hold a meaningful dialogue about the validity of their
stories if they have previously come to an agreement about the rules of
authentic narration. The snake of cognition bites into its own tail. Its
bite is fatal.
What has remained are raw relations of power. With the general
triumph of technological reason, an entirely new era of industrial mass
societies has begun. ‘The essence of this turn of events has however