Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 19:26:02 +0100
From: "Jón Proppé" <hborg-AT-centrum.is>
Subject: Re: lyotard


Dear Lois,

This discussion has really taken off, so much so that just by glancing
away from the screen for a day and a half I seem to have lost the
thread. But the issues are interesting so I’ll plod on.

Well, yes. Of course L does not see postmodernism as simply a name for a
period and there probably is something to this idea of a cycle of belief
and disbelief in the grand narratives. But there is also something to
the point that Habermas made in response to L that cultural phases don’t
so much replace each other as they become overlaid one on top of the
other. Nothing is ever quite lost, it just gets mashed in with a lot of
new stuff.

The point that a particular "phase" (I’m trying for a neutral term here)
is characterised by incredulity toward meta-narratives should always be
taken with a grain of salt. There is no period in the history of ideas
where we cannot find both dogma and dissent. And there are few ideas
knocking about today that we cannot give a genealogy stretching back at
least a couple of centuries or three.  I don’t mean to throw wrenches in
anyone’s works, but I suspect that the tendency to look for radical
shifts in culture is, at least in part, a generational thing – seeking
to distance oneself from all that went before.

That said, it really does seem to me that something fairly profound
happened in the time that people speak of as the inception of
postmodernism. What it was I don’t quite know and I’m not sure it was
altogether a good thing; it could be construed as the triumph of an
image-driven consumer capitalism where the "distrust in meta-narratives"
simply means that it no longer appears to be possible to define any
stance that will allow for effective resistance against the economic and
ideological structures that rule. Whether this was the cause of the
cultural shift or vice versa is a chicken-and-egg question.

I still haven’t recovered my copy of the Pomo Cond (never lend books to
anyone!) but I’ve tried to reconstruct some idea of what L was on about.
As far as I can remember L used paralogism (usually in the plural) to
refer to certain paradoxical experiences that defy our explanatory
capacity. In Just Gaming (which I seem to have had the sense not to lend
to anyone) L uses the term twice, but both times in the standard
rhetorical sense. I would be very interested in seeing more of your
thoughts on the subject.

Rhetorically it seems that there is a valid point in saying the paralogy
lies somehow at the root of creativity. If we work within one system of
thought only, such as some whopping meta-narrative, we are unlikely to
come up with much that is new or truly unexpected. It is only by
breaking the rules in some way -- by making an unexpected connection or
crossing two lines of thought – that we can do this. Koestler actually
wrote about this sort of thing and saw it as an explanation of both
theoretical innovation and humour. His line of thought, if accepted,
would explain why satire has always been so effective an antidote to
dogma.

A fascinating topic for discussion in any case.

Best, Jon