File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_1998/lyotard.9812, message 122


Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 12:13:27 EST
Subject: RE: Paralogy



Hugh, I was totally dumbfounded by your comment that to "not insist on some
ultimate =93word, presence, essence, truth or reality to act as the foundation
of all thought, language and experience=94 is a facist pronouncement. To me it
is the totalizing authoritarianism of the foundational philosophies that is
closer to fascism. The postmodernist call to free ourselves from the
constraining ideologies of ultimate truth and reality are liberating ideas not
fascist.

I wondered how the word fascism worked itself into a discussion of the
postmodern. Then quite by coincidence while flipping through TV channels last
night I caught the last few minutes of a Masterpiece Theater presentation.
Since I only saw the last few minutes I have no idea of the context, but what
I saw was a sinister looking character being accused of fascism because of his
deconstructionist position. Then I remembered how accusations of fascism had
been used to attack poststructuralist philosophers by the =93holy arbiters=94 of
tradition. As I recall, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Paul DeMann were all accused
of fascist thought. Nietzsche was implicated for advocating irrationalism and
his often misunderstood position on the =93superman=94; Heidegger for following
Nietzsche and DeMann for actually collaberating with the Natzi=92s.  The
relationship of Natzi doctrine to Nietzsche=92s philosophy and the defense of
Nietzsche is to  complex to discuss here and I am not sure I could do it
justice. Suffice it to say that challenging rationalism does not advocate an
irrationalism such as exhibited by the Natzi=92s. That is a  modern
misunderstanding of the critique of rationalism that doesn=92t recognize the
limitations of binary thought.

However, I would like to briefly discuss the postmodern critique of truth and
certainty as potentially fascist tools.  Foucault in his critique of
enlightenment traditions has shown the way in which social institutions,
discourses and practices contribute to the formation of individuals as
subjects in the interest of power. Deleuze and Guattari carry the idea a step
farther by suggesting that subjectivities, so formed, produce authoritarian
egos and provide fertile ground for fascism. While Lyotard doesn=92t use the
word fascism in the PMC I think that his use of the word terror comes close. I
believe what he is saying is that the totalizing enlightenment epistemologies
prohibit the free exchange of ideas in a sort of fascistic authoritarian way. 

Please don=92t take this the wrong way, but I would like to subject your use of
the dictionary to a postmodern critique. Much of the postmodern literature has
been grounded on the problematic of language and the instability of meaning.
following this, the dictionary could be thought of as an authoritarian tool
which attempts to impose absolute meaning.  While it is useful as you use it
to ground our conversations, it can also be used as Lyotard might say, to
limit ideas.

You make the point that, =93In dialogue, or group exchange of concepts, we still
need understanding and agreement on the words we hear, speak.=94  While in some
sense this is true, in that we do need some common starting point, to think
that the dictionary definitions can provide the foundation for our
conversations is very limiting.

Just a couple of examples based on the definitions you provided:

PHILOSOPHY:  2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general
understanding of values and reality by chiefly
speculative rather than observational means
 c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts
expressing fundamental beliefs

If we were use this narrow view of philosophy, Lyotard would be disqualified
as a philosopher as he is challenging the very concept of reality rather than
looking for it.  

WISDOM:1 a : accumulated philosophic or scientific
 learning : KNOWLEDGE b : ability to discern inner
qualities and relationships : INSIGHT c : good sense :
JUDGMENT d : generally accepted belief

If wisdom were no more that the accumulation of philosophic or scientific
learning then it wouldn't hold much stature as our learning is constantly in
flux.  And as far as wisdom being good sense or generally accepted belief, is
wisdom really no more than common sense?

REALITY:
1 : the quality or state of being real
2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a
reality> (2) : the totality
of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something
that is neither
derivative nor dependent but exists  necessarily
- in reality : in actual fact

This is a tough one. It is convenient to have a simplistic definition of
reality for everyday life because so much of what we do is based on the
tangible.  But the concept carries over into all thought such that it becomes
restrictive and repressive. Postmodern philosophy is 
challenging that reductionist view of reality.

In summary, I don=92t think our reading of a postmodern essay can be limited to
dictionary definitions.  The very idea of postmodern philosophy is that it is
pushing meaning way beyond its common usage. Nor do I think that postmodern
philosophy is in any way fascist. On the contrary it seeks to challenge the
foundations that are so necessary to an authoritarian state.

Don


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005