File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_1996/96-12-19.214, message 56


Date: 29 Dec 1995 18:00:09 U
From: "Bill Schaffer" <bill.schaffer-AT-fine.arts.su.edu.au>
Subject: Re: meta-narratives


        Reply to:   RE>>meta-narratives

Re:

>Deleuze's point is to show that this being the case, this problematizes >the
entire edifice of the Kantian project which seeks an harmonious >equilibrium
between the faculties, rather than a dissension between the >demands of reason
and the lack of power of the imagination./J

Jonathan Judaken wrote this very concise and clear summation of Delueze on
Kant in reply to my earlier post on Lyotard and the sublime. I have read the
book in question and am familiar with its theme of a discordant accord between
the faculties.

I was initially going to respond by attempting a fuller definition of 'the
sublime' as it operates in Delueze-Derrida- Lyotard, but looking at this I
realise how little I understood what I was talking about when I tried to
situate Lyotard's take on the sublime in my own post.

In the earlier post I attempted comparing Lyotard and Derrida. It is not just
that the terms in which I did so were reductive and too easily arrived at -
though they were - but that the introduction  of the the third term 'Deleuze'
makes it impossible for my simple comparison to be sustained.

It is perhaps a bit like the 'three body' problem in physics, which even the
most powerful supercomputers can not dissolve. The gravitiational interaction
of two bodies can be determined by relatively simple equations, but the
interaction of three bodies is non-linear and quickly becomes impossible to
predict (I believe they get around this by averaging
out as many two body equations as practically possible).

Similarly, when trying to think Deleuze-Lyotard-Derrida in relation to the 
sublime, any comparison I establish between any two terms is transformed from
the perspective of the third.

In other words, I suppose that in attempting to conceptualise the differences
between these three modes of sublimity we are already participating in the
sublime: we are already at the limits of conceptualisation; caught up in the
simultaneous necessity/impossibility of comparison.

Indeed, my impression is that this relation to Kant/sublimity is one of the
most important nodal points of 'postmodern' (and modern) philosophy. If we
could just figure that one out we would have terms in which to
identify/differentiate the different modes of postmodernism.

But of course, postmodernism (and the sublime) suggest that this resolution of
differences in a single ground is impossible. But then again, it also suggests
that certain events and forms  can be made possible by their very
impossibility (BWO in Deleuze, quasi-transcendental in Derrida, the differend
in Lyotard all seem to do something like this) ... so my head spins and I
don't know want to think next ...

But if it is still worth thinking about philosophy, then I think this is one
of the questions worth thinking about. There are some profound questions about
our expectations of aesthetics, ethics, and the relation between them waiting
in there.

I am very interested in pursuing this further, if anyone can help me with this
'triple-bind'. I find e-mail discussions can be very helpful in exposing one's
confusions to the world and oneself (that's what we are here for, aint it?).

I am also interested in discussing the ethical implications of Lyotard's work
on the sublime and the 'differend'. One of Lyotard's most admirable
achievements, as I see it, is to show that 'postmodernism' does not at all
mean 'ethical relativism', but instead begins with the acknowledgement of the
impossibility of ethical relativism AND universal criteria. This seems to me
to be the result of Lyotard's meditations on the differend of Auschwitz, an
issue in which I have a specific research interest.

a final question occurs to me: why is it that postmodern philosophy discussion
lists are almost always inactive? I belong to lists on the Holocaust, the
history of anti-semitism, Australian literature, buddhism, and self-organising
systems. These can all be very busy - some of them are constantly so. But
almost nothing ever happens on the postmodern lists to which I subscribe. I've
even visited the postmodern MOO several times, and that is usually desolate
too.

What does this suggest about 'postmodern culture'? You'd think postmodern
academics would be the most eager cybernauts around, out there regendering and
trans-humanising themselves night and day. Where are all the dialogues on
dialogics - it just doesn't seem to happen!

Have we pluralised our voices into silence? It reminds me of something Jean
Baudrillard says about the contemporary intellectual scene: we are floating
around in harmless little bubbles. There is no real debate, no dissension or
consensus, no consequence ...

unknowingly, Willimina


--------------------------------------
Date: 29/12/95 5:00 AM
To: Bill Schaffer
From: lyotard-AT-jefferson.village.virg
I thought Bill Schaffer's post on 'the unrepresentable' made some
exceptionally
difficult concepts in L's work really clear.  Thank you.

 Bill wrote: "L treats sublimity as some sort of 'challenge' to the rest of
the
Kantian system, whereas I would argue that it is the lynchpin! The one who
does
look at this very closely, aside from Hegel, is Derrida in "Economimesis". The
sublime is also a recurrent theme for the Lacanian cultural therist, Slavoj
Zizek)."  

Deleuze's book on Kant, *Kant's Critical Philosophy* as I recall, makes a
similar argument to the one that you suggest here (that the sublime is the
lynchpin to Kant's entire critical project--the possibility of the three
critiques hangs together on the impossibility of the sublime (as does the
relation between the faculties).  However, Deleuze's point is to show that
this being the case, this problematizes the entire edifice of the Kantian
project which seeks an harmonious equilibrium between the faculties, rather
than a dissension between the demands of reason and the lack of power of the
imagination./J


------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by inpost.arts.su.edu.au with SMTP;29 Dec 1995 04:58:53 +1000
Received: from jefferson.village.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu
          id aa15085; 28 Dec 95 12:49 EST
Received: by jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU (5.67a8/1.34)
	id AA17175; Thu, 28 Dec 1995 17:39:46 GMT
Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com by jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
(5.67a8/1.34)
	id AA36083; Thu, 28 Dec 1995 12:39:43 -0500
Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
	id MAA24766; Thu, 28 Dec 1995 12:39:43 -0500
Date: 28 Dec 95 12:38:21 EST
From: Jonathan Judaken <75573.2042-AT-compuserve.com>
To: Sysop <lyotard-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: meta-narratives
Message-Id: <951228173821_75573.2042_GHL108-1-AT-CompuServe.COM>
Sender: owner-lyotard-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: lyotard-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu





   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005