File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_1997/lyotard.9712, message 7


Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 22:28:38 -0800
From: hugh bone <hughbone-AT-worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Rights and Wrongs and Loss of Time


jon roffe wrote:
> 
> Hi all
> 
> I was intrigued by Hugh's last post re 'righting the wrongs'. It seems
> to me (once, again, as a result of reading Foucault), that this mode of
> resistance and 'change for the better' is problemmatic to say the least.
> The 'liberal' mode of social action is fraught with danger, since the
> activist is as much a part of power regimes as the opressor or the
> oppressed.  I seem to recall someone saying in a previous post that
> there is a temptation to speak on behalf of the silent and in doing so
> prolong their silence - I think this is one part of the danger.
> 
> This is precisely where the idea of the differend for me becomes a
> useful tool.  I've only been into this stuff for a short while, but this
> is what I think at the moment.  What Lyotard outlines is one of the ways
> in which language creates inequality.  My question is to what extent
> differends make positive action seriously problemmatic for the
> philosopher.
> 
> Jon Roffe
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> 2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222

REPLY:  Yes, an analysis of differends could be a useful tool.  Yet
differends are endemic as dandruff.  And so are philosophers.
I would guess about 10,000 philosophers in U.S. alone.  Positive action
for philosophers is usually the action of writing words on paper or PC.  

The mode of social action which brought Civil Rights laws, ended 
Vietnam War, changed Eastern Europe without bloody wars, might be 
considered positive action.  

Those actions had to do with rights and wrongs, but little to do with
activist philosophers so far as I know. 

Some of the French philosophers make reference to the student
demonstrations of '68.  Perhaps some of them were philosopher-activists.
Foucault wrote convincingly about sources, use and evolution of power.
An earlier French writer on this subject was de Jouvenel.

In the previous post, I was responding to Eric's statement and noted
that politics is one of several important subplots of the garden of
philosophy.  

Most courses in philosophy seem to be about ancient Greeks and Germans 
up to and including Marx. 

I think Lyotard wanted (wants) to do philosophy about the world we live
in as well as probe works past.

Our previous posts dealt with Le Differend and disappearance of 
personal "time" into the corporate maw.

I don't think language creates inequality, people do.  I don't think 
the market creates wealth, people do.  

Foucault's books suggested some uncommon ways to look at power.  So do
Lyotard's concepts of language. 

I agree with Eric on the need for action, and with Jon and others 
on the insidious ways we, the masses, are brainwashed.  That's politics
at work.  No one has answers.  You can read and weep with Chomsky 
and others.

Any "feelings" trying to find expression in phrases yet to be invented?

Respectfully submitted,
Hugh


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005