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
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005