A Comrade Responds by Email

i’m not quite sure about what you mean when you write about the "search for objective historical truths." isn't the "truth," according to the materialist critique, often a metaphysical cover for a dialectical process of becoming? not simply a proposition in our minds, but in the way we live. i know your choice of words here is polemical, but i also think that it's very easy to freeze into the object of postmodernist derision, the belief in some preestablished harmony between representation and reality -- i think the pomo critique remains relevant, although some of their premises and proposed political solutions can seem so symptomatic.

the brief commentary on the physically and mentally handicapped -- not to put too fine a point on it, it's great to imagine how we could make an open society for everyone, but it does sound a bit like they need our "able" help more than i think they really do. it's a little bit paternalistic. i think that they have the power to liberate themselves if we just get out of their damn way and help to realize what they themselves demand and agitate for.

-- comrade z

•—•—•—•—•

Comrade Z, your first paragraph gives me a way to begin a better understanding of an intellectual tendency that I’ve regarded with a sloppy and often knee-jerk suspicion. You’ve also correctly pointed out my insufficient understanding of dialectical materialism. I have to remedy that. I don’t claim to be a systematic or even a particularly systemic thinker. Well, we do what we can, but, polemics aside, my suspicion is (and always has been) unwise; one might even say: sectarian. Lack of understanding hinders me in my relations with others who’d probably have much to offer me, if I’d only listen.

That said, I can’t imagine you disbelieving that there is such a thing as truth (this isn’t an accusation!). Phenomena can be observed and measured and we can and do attain a degree of objectivity in our observation and measurement. Somewhere, Zukofsky says that the truth resides in facts. We look at historical facts. We argue the causes, means and ends. We try to reach a constructive mutual understanding/ interpretation based on objective, studious observation and self-observation. Singly and in the company of others (i.e., in our lives as we live them), don’t we try terribly hard to free our minds of pathological ideologies, so that our asses can follow us into a hopeful future? (I know that’s undialectical, but I just couldn’t resist...) We sure as hell don’t do it alone! Our “search for objective historical truths” must be rational and collective and, above all, ethical. It can’t end (as you’ve pointed out), or else all is lost. The best thing is, I know I’m gonna hear a lot more on this from you.

As for the second paragraph, you are absolutely right. Your point is by no means too fine! I wrote imprecisely and without proper respect and sensitivity. In the future, I’ll be more careful.

Thanks very much for that helpful critique.

In solidarity,
Chris