File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_1999/lyotard.9907, message 72


From: Judy <jaw-AT-earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Paralogy continued
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:16:05 -0700


As you know, you and I read Lyotard very
>differently, perhaps incommensurably.  Do you think so?

yes in many ways.

  If so, how
>would relate this to oppression and hegemony?  Are you with the
>hegemonic interpretation or am I?  There can't e more than one, can
>there?

not sure what you are asking right here.
>
>You wrote:
>> If every phrase presents a universe and constitutes it
>> according to a regimen,
>
>To take this out of Lyotard's technical language I might paraphrase this
>as:
>"If every comment someone makes presents a universe of possibilities
>that are constrained by the rules of that particular region of langauge,
>..."  In other words, when I say, "Hi Judy" as we happen to encounter
>while we're out for independent walks, your universe ofphrases is
>constrained. You might say, "Hi Lois!"  Or you might say, "How good to
>see you," or any number of other things.  This is your "universe" that
>is constituted according to a regimen. Right?

OK.


  And that universe of
>phrase possibilities does not include, "Do you have bananas at home?"
>Or even "I had a rock in my shoe yesterday."  Those phrases have their
>own regimen, but not the one that is started with the phrase "Hi Judy."
>We'll have to switch regimens for that.  Is this how you (and othrs)
>would interpret this very Lyotardian words you have given us here?

I think so.

>
>Well, thinking of them that way, I have problems with what you say
>next.  It must mean that I am thinking of the "if-clause" of your
>sentence differently than you are.
>
>You say:
>> to me this means to use language is to start off
>> down the path of generalization and obscuring of difference every time;
>
>Huh?  Why a generalization?  How do we get from "Hi Judy" to a
>generalization that obscures differences?  I'm not following this.

"Hi Judy" generalizes the encounter in a certain way at the cost of many
other possibilities.  There have been times when I've had to pass someone
in a hall or  ride on an elevator with them when I really didn't want to
speak to them or interact with them, someone I don't like perhaps, and when
I say "Hi Steve" there's a lot that's obscured. Does this help?  There was
this guy who used to work at my office that, when we would walk down the
hall in opposite directions and come within not much more than a foot of
each other, and we were the only people there, he would look toward the
wall and walk by. His silence made many possible phrases inadmissable. He
was the boss of the whole office and prudence made me want to have a polite
hello. I see these things as completely political, the "Hi's" and
"silences" and other moves. Does this clear up what I'm thinking?

  I
>think you must be thinking of a different introductory sentence that
>sketches out the phrase universe.  Maybe something like, "Americans are
>greedy."  Something like that?

no, not only statements like that.

>
>You go on:
>> postmodernity brings insight into this and raises the possibility of
>> resistance in the valuing of ongoing deconstruction (paralogy).
>
>Postmodernity brings insight into this tendency to generalize?

insight into the nagging presence of what is not presented.


Much of the paraphrasing you follow with fits pretty good for me.


>> Yes, I agree, his treatment of differends is not critical or negative. What
>> he treats critically is the obscuring of differends, the pretenses that
>> they have been resolved or dissipated or 'fixed' as if they are in need of
>> being solved.
>
>Good. That's very helpful in understanding you -- however this does not
>represent my reading.  Do you understand how I think differently about
>this?  I don't just think the opposite of what you think.  I simply put
>his position together a little differently than you do, using different
>concepts.

yes. I see that.

>
>I think you are saying this:
>Now that we know that we are all talking within different phrase
>regimens and not really saying anything that is corrector incorrect, we
>can accept that this is a natural state of affairs and not fight it.  We
>are not able to really understand each other.  It is amusing sometimes,
>fun, but we are not following what each other has to say.

Lois, I do think we understand each other in many instances, when we play
language games, such as "Pass the salt," or when we are in agreement with
the other parties, when our political interests are shared. I think there
is an ordinary sense of "understand" that is fitting, that conveys a rich
experience. I think too there is a problem when there is a failure of
understanding, a conflict of interests, an incommensurability of paradigms,
where the parties are unequal in power and the result of the conflict is
that the weaker is silenced and the silence is pronounced by the stronger
to be a just resolution, or to be no conflict at all. This takes many
forms. It can happen in a very polite way. But drawing attention to the
incommensurability between phrases illuminates these issues, and this is
what I get inspired by in Lyotard. I think "understanding" is very common,
and that it tends to have the narrative effects Lyotard attributes to
consensus, and as such, deconstruction of 'common understanding', i.e.
consensus, is politically important.

Correct me if I get this wrong, but I understand you as caring very much
about bringing people together, and for healing differences between people
by helping them to find common languages that can sooth them or can bridge
painful gaps between them in ways that give voice to all. Am I saying this
fairly?  I admire and support this, and at the same time, want to give
focus to the pitfalls of seeking agreement and common ground--I don't want
to emphasize the pitfalls and silence discussion of the benefits. This is
the value in being able to tolerate incommensurability in our rules and
their universes so that they can be amply justaposed and born witness to.

You are always careful to stress that the agreement and common grounds you
seek are not transcendent nor absolute nor permanent, but are local and
provisional. I hope you will flesh out more what this could mean, mainly in
the sense of what if anything makes them local and provisional rather than
taking on the mantle of permanence and perfection.  what safeguards might
there be to insure that voices aren't silenced, if not the encouragement to
deconstruct the agreement in light of differends allowed to be active and
thus, undermining of the sought after consensus?
Judy








   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005