Temporary but Unrepentant Umbilical to Furthur Thought-Insanity, Part XXXIV

Carlos-O(1):

“ This is going to sound odd coming from me, but what I think is that in postmodernity we have a natural or immediate or easy-effortless access to non-totalizing thinking…We know what that is without needing an explanation, without being taught it. We do non-totalizing thinking without needing to examine what we are doing very closely…And it appears non-totalizing thinking is destroyed by any such examination.”

Carlos-o(∞):

“ This is also not a position we-of-the -o(∞) ordinarily take, but it is clear to us you are making things too simple for yourself. To start, notice this: you give a basis in totalization to both the state and critique. (Now, we-of-the -o(∞) say this whether you call critique a totalization or a non-totalizing manner of thinking. And by the way, it is not at all clear which of these two options you are choosing.)

We-of-the -o(∞) say this: in postmodernity while THE STATE strengthens, CRITIQUE weakens. We-of-the -o(∞) want to know why, as what both you and we are calling non-totalizing thinking becomes ‘dominant’ we do not see the weakening of THE STATE concurrently with the weakening of CRITIQUE (as totalizing.) Is there a ‘non-totalizing state’ which corresponds to ‘non-totalizing critique’,enabling it and being enabled by it?

If non-totalizing thinking is characteristic of our age (you are close to saying this is our Zeitgeist,) why doesn’t this thinking extend into and cause a reworking of political theory? Or if it is, why are the results so unsatisfactory?”