07 May 2006

Contra-Diction and the Death of Discourse

From the NYT Magazine article, "Contra-Contraception",

"I think the left missed something in the last couple of decades," says Sarah Brown, president of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, which positions itself as a moderate voice in the heated world of reproductive politics. "With the advent of oral contraception, I think there was this great sense that we had a solution to the problem of unintended pregnancy. But that is a medical model. I think the thing that was missed was that sex and pregnancy and relationships aren't just a health issue. They are really about family and gender and religion and values. And what the right did was move in and say we're not just talking about body parts."

which perfectly sums up the Husserlian phenomenological horizon. That is, modern science--which at times seems like a leftist ally (what about the atomic bomb? Neo-conservatives [A.K.A. Francis Fukayama] seem all right w/that piece of technology)--modern science is seen as dehumanizing, e.g., looking at the body as a system of facts and causal relations. In fact, the right, then, does step in and say,
--Look here, we care about the personal you. We won't say your soul, per se; however, you can be saved on Earth; and your salvation is your meaning.
Now the right's move here is Husserl's move in the Crisis, i.e., that science has said,
--You are a fact, not a soul.
In this way, Sara Brown, above, has an excellent point and an obvious point. What does the Husserlian project have to offer to this crisis?
--Science's presuppositions about what the body is, its sense- and ontological-valdity is grounded on the presuppositions of a Leibnizian mathesis universalis and causality. However, the religious-mythical view is also grounded on various presuppositions--i.e., the objectification of praxis into the poltical and hegemonic ends of religion. A phenomenological reduction of this particular encounter will show that neither side--science or religion--is ungrounded on a sort of faulty presupposition. Once we've established this, and once we realize that the human qua objectified transcendental subjectivity is the suplier of sense- and ontological validity, then we can have a position on this encounter, or intersection; it will be the position of the one who himself (or herself) creates within him/herself this very intersection. While not necessarily entailing the subjugation of action to praxis, we realize we can act pragmatically if and only if we realize the presuppositions that go into this pragmatic decision. This is the case because by our very actions we give the sense- and ontological validity to our world. E.g., I will take Plan B, and I will take Ortho-Tricylin not as an expedient, and not as a fucking baby-killer, but because I've considered the alternative (i.e., having a child) and I've considered through the phenomenological reduction what all this means to me (It means me, i.e., my reaction to it--MERELY) and I don't want that. Call it praxis or Satan-worshipping if you will.