I added some comments to my “Intertranscendental” post.
One is an application of this idea to the plight of design under corporate managerial hegemony:
This same dynamic, by the way — transcendental subjectivity imposed on discourse, both substantively and procedurally — is what can make dialogue between designers and corporate managerials an exercise in futility. The managerial subject cannot operate outside its own horizon, which it assumes, with that confidence obliviousness alone affords, is absolute and comprehensive.
This is a complaint as old as philosophy, usually with natural consequences also as old as philosophy.
The other comment was more bellyaching about leftist metacognitive (metasophic) incompetence projecting its own deficiencies upon its Other.
This is the reason why right-conservatives in the 80s and 90s rolled their eyes at left-liberals’ incessant overtures “to dialogue”. The liberals invariably imposed their own ideological transcendental subject on the proceedings, not only on what content was indisputable, but on the form and regulation of the forum itself. But because it was their own transcendental subject being imposed, liberals were constitutionally oblivious to what struck conservatives as ludicrously tilted. Because, to themselves, they were self-evidently smarter, more radical, more self-aware, better intentioned and less naive realist than their interlocutors, they resorted to theories explaining the psycho-ethical deficiencies behind all the balking. All without a trace of that vaunted “liberal irony”. So the left gave up entirely on dialogue, which was the same as giving up on liberalism. Ironically, they knew about the dynamics, but refused to apply them universally and reflexively, and were unable to “practice what they preach” to a degree sufficiently radical to diagnose and treat their own profound and systemically enforced injustice. “The work” they’ve done to date is superficial and not only leaves their self-ignorance and vices unaddressed, it is now used to justify their unrestrained exercise.
The contemporary illiberal left — progressivism — having given up on both dialogical gestures and liberalism, now uses its hegemonic power to enforce the view that it is either victimized by hegemonic power, or threatened by the imminent hegemony of a nefarious power which, unlike it, seeks total dominance, and therefore warrants the use of extra-democratic means to save “our” democracy. Unless it is mercilessly suppressed, silenced, marginalized and otherwise prevented from voicing its views and arguing its case, it might gain power and misuse that power to silence marginal voices and oppress those who cannot resist it.
By the way, the target of both comments is one and the same collective.
Despite all attempted appearances, progressivism is corporate managerialism applied to politics. By the same coercive sleight of hand by which it exercises hegemonic power in order to be the champion of the hegemonically oppressed, it gets to oppose corporate capitalism while being corporate capitalism.
They are in the corporate world, you see — but not of it. But while they wait in tense metastatic expectation for political salvation, they play corporate hardball, and they play by the rules and they play to win — dreaming, on one hand, idealistic dreams of dismantlement of this unjust system, and, on the other, practical dreams of a lowkey lavish retirement on a fat 401(k).