File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_1999/lyotard.9907, message 190


Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:00:22 -0700
From: Lois Shawver <rathbone-AT-california.com>
Subject: Re: the reality check is in the mail


Judy,

When I suggest "we" need a term other than "ruse" this is a vague "we"
including anyone who wants to create new langauge games and make
paradigm shifts between language games without evoking unnecessary
distrust in their listeners. Does that include you?  I certainly
wouldn't claim, of course, that shifting the name "ruse" to something
like "tack" would be sufficient to evoke trust.  Establishing trust, as
you know, is a very complicated thing.  

How do you go about trying to establish trust?  I'm not quite sure how I
do it entirely, but a key element is being trustworthy by trying not to
have unbriefed ruses operating.  Of course, I say that in the
vernacular, and I think Lyotard uses the word "ruse" in a
non-vernactular way.   I believe Lyotard was himself remarkably
trustworthy. That's my take on him.  He certainly did invent a new idiom
(we are discussing it when we talk about "ruses" and "paralogy", etc.)
and this was to shift paradigms, but he did not hide the ball in any
deceptive way. 

Of course, one can assimilate his case to the case of deception by
stretching the word 'deception' to include things as not giving a
running description of one's motivational context.

..Lois Shawver

Judy wrote:
> 
> >> Sort of. I'm saying I may judge it good to be deceptive and I may judge it
> >> bad to be deceptive, and I have no way to say which is which in the
> >> abstract. What you say below is a case in point:
> >
> >That's the most important aspect of what I'm saying, too. But I want to
> >add that we need a term other than "ruse" to refer to those instances of
> >taking a tack, when our actions are not particularly calculated or
> >deceptive.
> 
> Lois
> I'm not sure why I would use the word if I wanted to imply something
> uncalculating or not decpetive.  Why do you think anyone would?  What do
> you have in mind?  The use of 'we' here ("we need a term") is premature. I
> don't know if I'm part of such a consensus; I don't have enough
> information. Have I said something that has given you reason to assume we
> have a consensus?  Is the need so obvious, in your view, that broad
> consensus can be assumed?
> 
> To reach a provisional consensus with you, I need an example. what example
> do you have in mind that would illustrate such a need?  You gave a
> hypothetical  example where someone announces that they think ruse is a
> good tactic, and as a result, you would not trust them, and thus, the ruse
> is defeated. I think this was one way you illustrated the need for a
> different term. I think I would agree that any time someone is doing
> something self-defeating, I would recommend they try something different
> (providing I support their purpose or have some reason for wanting to see
> them succeed). But this doesn't seem to be the same issue as using the term
> to imply something undeceptive or uncalculating. Do you tie these two
> points together, the one about giving one's ruses away and the one about
> giving the wrong implication about what one is doing?
> 
> >
> >You ask if I think he has a positive effect on me as a reader.
> 
> I didn't ask if Lyotard had a positive effect on you; I asked, and am
> asking again, how his way of talking about ruse affected you.  Do you agree
> that he gives the term a valuable or positive role and if so, why is that?
> By what standards is it positive for you?  and if you think the term
> detracts from his work, defeats his purpose, in what way?  I appreciate
> your patience with my trying to get this.  For me to agree to be included
> in the 'we' that needs a different term, I need more information.
> 
>   Well,
> >yes, but that doesn't mean that I accept everything as is.  It can be
> >improved for particular purposes, locally and provisionally.
> >
> 
> and how does this relate to the place given by Lyotard to the term 'ruse'
> in the writings you have in mind?  What purposes?
> 
> again, thank you for your patience with my slowness to understand you.
> Judy

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005