Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 11:03:12 -0700
From: Lois Shawver <rathbone-AT-california.com>
Subject: Re: opening salvo





Colin,

I agree that every move language games of paralogy cannot invent the
rules, but I don't see that this destroys the idea of paralogy.  Just as
consensus is a stage in the paralogy, so is invention of the rules.
Could you explain more what you mean when you say:

<Politically, this tension would translate to a worrying
 complicity with the very agent of oppression - a problem which infects
 all oppositional politics it seems to me.>

You anticipate my point above, in fact, when you say:
< ii) Of course, to Lyotard my use of the word 'universalised' would
have the tenor of that very homogenising aggression against which his
entire oeuvre seems set. >

You also point to the paradox that while eschewing universalizing
language he seems to use it himself.  I think that metanarratives are
not equivalent, however, to "universalizing language."  As I read
Lyotard, a metanarrative is supposed to assimilate everything unto
itself.  It is a universal statement or narrative that pretends to be
true regardless of language game. It thus confines us to a preferred
langauge game, mystifies us so that we can only speak within that
langauge game.

The problem is that now and then, Lyotard himself seems to verge on
wanting to do that himself, to making paralogy the only game in town. 
That's understandable.  He is at times the philosopher who teaches us
about paralogy and at times he is the author who wants to inspire us
with the wonders of paralogy.  He speaks mostly with his philosopher
voice, but at times, as in your quote, "Let us wage war on totality..."
he becomes the author and becomes the great prescriber.  He speaks with
two voices - which, to my mind, is quite fitting, but one needs to be
cognizant of which voice he is using to avoid confusion. This relates to
the last part of your note, perhaps, although it would be intersting to
compare our ways of characterizing Lyotard's two voices.

About the agonistic aspect of his model of paralogy, I question that
this metaphor is central to his notion of paralogy.  This is the aspect
of his theory that I wish to deconstruct.  I think that agonistics is
only one phase on paralogy, too, and that Lyotard's vision was
unnecessarily constrained by this metaphor.

Thanks for trying to revive this conversation.

..Lois Shawver