Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 13:38:26 -0700
From: Lois Shawver <rathbone-AT-california.com>
Subject: Re: methodology and the differend


Mike, Chris, Judy,

Judy, so glad to see you posting again. You said:

"The question isn't "how do we eliminate or resolve a differend,"
because if it's resolved then by definition it isn't a differend..."

Perhaps you have a different picture of things.  To my ear this is as
specious as arguing that by definition we can't put out fires because by
definition they would no longer be fires.  May I ask you more questions
about how you see this?  Lyotard, to the extent he is Wittgensteinian,
and to the extent that his work is consonant with postmodern authors
such as Kennth Gergen, John Shotter, Rom Harre, does not impute hidden
motives that the observer innocently discerns without infusing the
motive with her own flavor, her own interpretation.  Or am I presuming
you are going in a different direction in your study of differends than
I imagine?  What do you think about the ontological status of
"motives"?  Do you see them as existing apart from their social
construction in language?  What about the rest of you?

Chris Summers, thanks, for thinking of me in this context.  A paper I
have done on this topic is:

Shawver, L. (1998), On the Clinical Relevance of Selected Postmodern
Ideas:
with a Focus on Lyotard's Concept of "Differend".  Journal of the
American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 26(4), 617-635.

Mike, what do you mean mean "methodology"?  Methodology for doing
research on the occurrence of differends?  The recognition of
differends?  Do you need to satisfy a department that wants you to do
statistical analyses on your research?  Tell us more. The word
"methodology" doesn't link (i.e., connect) in a spontaneous way in my
mind to "differend".  I have no idea where you're going, on what you
have in mind, and I suspect that's true for other people here, too.  Can
you provide us more context?

..Lois Shawver