I tend to think of it as a city with many different buildings. Each is building on its own foundation, and it may or may not be directly connected to any of the others. Business goes on between them, but only when you leave one building and take something from it to another. You can't have a whole city in just one building!

"Modernist art" means early 20th century stuff (broadly, stuff like Picasso or Mondrian). Adorno's main interest was music. The musician he took the greatest interest in, was Schoenberg.

I don't like Mondrian, and I only like Picasso in his blue period, and when he did "Guernica."

And I can't stand Schoenberg. Song birds apparently agree with me . http://www.therestisnoise.com/2007/10/sparrow-playlis.html

You can have a city, sure, as long as the different buildings are still interdependent. No discipline is (or should be) an island, after all. (My lone psychology building would be pretty ugly and unstable after a while.)

From a democratic (majority rules) perspective, aren't there now more qualified non-voters than registered actual voters in the US?

If so then that would mean that those who do vote are in the minority.

If being an "American" is defined by democratic group-think, then only non-voters would be true, red-blooded Americans by that standard.

Anyway, politics is for entertainment only for Nemo.

I have nothing further to say on this sport here.

Now back to the eternal parsing of defintions of "post-modernism" and other such arbitrary mental categories.

Sure - but that interdependence should only follow from what the different branches happen to actually need from one another, and NOT from a preconceived notion about how they SHOULD be related. (eg. "Science should talk about brain chemicals or evolution.")

I don't much care for Adorno's favorite art, either. And I don't much care for Adorno. I was just giving a survey of the territory.