From: EricMurph-AT-aol.com
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 20:10:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: paralogy, art, and Lyotard (repost)


It is good that you mention language games and the link to Wittgenstein since
I believe this could be a fruitful area of discussion in connection with
Lyotard. Just a few notes, comments, and questions here to move towards
further discussion.

1.  Have you come across anything in the P. Investigations that correlates to
the paralogical in the sense that Lyotard uses it? (I also think that as a
group we need to develop a clearer understanding of this term than we have
thus far.)  Maybe W could clarify a few things for us.

2.   My understanding is that Lyotard moved away from language games towards
the phrase  universe because he considered the former too antropomorphic.
 Games have players which are striving to attain goals (sometimes literally).

3.  The emphasis upon the differend, or phrases in disputes, is more
agonistic than W.  Language games seem to be oriented towards a kind of
pluralism: forms of life that are a little fuzzy around the edges(What is a
game?, as W discusses).  Lyotard focuses on heterogenity, the breakdown of
communication, where different phrases bump up against each other and there
is no solution. This conflict situation is also, I believe, the breeding
ground of the paralogical.  Personally, I think the differend and the
paralogical are closely connected.

4. With Lyotard, Kant is always an influence, especially the Kant of the 3rd
Critique.  Sometime I am interested in here is that the early Wittgenstein
was very influenced by Kant, albeit through Schopenhauer.  I believe his idea
of metaphysics in the Tractus as that which cannot be discribed in logical
space, but only pointed to in nonsense phrases is an analogue of the Kantian
sublime as this has been developed by Lyotard.

Comments or further discussion would be appreciated.