Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:12:25 -0400
From: "J. B. Sclisizzi" <jbs-AT-toronto.cbc.ca>
Subject: Re: Das Capital


Lois Shawver wrote:

> So, to sort of sum up, it seems to Pitkin, and to me, too, that it is
> worthwhile distinguishing a political treatise from one that is
> descriptive even though in some uses of the word the term is so broad
> that it captures my call to my dog to come.

Eric [Mary Murphy&Salstrand] wrote:

> However, the twist that Lyotard gives to language games
> and speech acts is to politicize them and place them under the rubric of
> capitalism.

the question that arises is:  "is lyotard interested in language games per se, or
in how he can use them strategically?"  i think the answer is the latter.  and the
realm in which his use of language games functions strategically is the political
...

(and it's interesting to note how little lyotard refers to language games in the
last few works ...)

lois' quote from sim, "Lyotard opted to continue to resist capitalism with
something like the fervour of a Marxist beiever - but without benefit of the
theory itself." and eric's quote from lyotard, "I've struggled in different ways
against capitalism's regime of pseudorationality and performativity." i think say
it all.

the contentious question(s) is really:  "what value are lyotard's writings,
removed from their strategic function within the political?"  and are those
displaced writings still, in a significant sense, "lyotard"?  (signed, lyotard?)

brent ...