Isn't it also the case that the very terms we use—“ethics” and “politics”—tend to map onto the undermining and overmining views, respectively?
Ethics seems to want to reduce the field of action to one-on-one encounters between beings.
Politics says that one-on-one encounters are never as significant as the world (of economic, class, moral and so on relations) in which they take place.
These two ways of talking form what Adorno, talking about something else, would have called two halves of a torn whole, which nonetheless don't add up together. In other words, some nice compromise “between” the two is impossible. (With respect to my integral ecology friends.)
These two ways of talking form what Adorno, talking about something else, would have called two halves of a torn whole, which nonetheless don't add up together. In other words, some nice compromise “between” the two is impossible. (With respect to my integral ecology friends.)
Aren't we then hobbled when it comes to issues that affect society as a whole—nay the biosphere as a whole—yet affect us all individually (I have mercury in my blood and ultraviolet rays affect me unusually strongly)?
Would OOO be able to recast ethics and politics so that it was no longer a performance of intelligence in either domain to undermine or overmine?