Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:24:25 +1000
From: Reg Mifflin <regm-AT-space.net.au>
Subject: Re: Differend


Hugh,

I know what you mean when you talk about the sublime taking us into a realm
of conflict within ourselves. This, however, is nothing compared to the
level of conflict it provokes in other forums such as the Aesthetics-L
list, where analytic mastery is challenged. You get that.

Reg

At 10:50 AM 4/15/01 -0400, hugh bone wrote:
>Reg,
>
>What you quote and write clarifies your position.  I don't think the
>statements found in other works  invalidate the quote from"Le Differend",
>but they do get us into the meaning of particular words and genres i.e.what
>we can say about our individual thoughts and feelings, vs. what another
>individual understands by the words we use.
>
>The concept of the "sublime" seems to take us into a realm of conflict
>within ourselves, - personal concepts and understanding -
>that does not contstitute a "wrong", but reflect human physical, mental,
>emotional reaction to extreme events.
>
>"Genres' of discourse reach the essence of communicating with words, and
>perhaps, to some degree, communicating with images, gestures, all the
>languages of the senses and the arts, which we use to perceive, deceive and
>enlighten others and ourselves.
>
>Best,
>Hugh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Hugh,
>>
>> My query is a result of thinking about the differend in the wider context,
>> from The Postmodern Condition to Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime.
>>
>> The most often-quoted descriptions of the diff, such as below, don't
>> include the imperative I find elsewhere:
>> "Litigation takes place. I would like to call a differend (le differend)
>> the case where the plaintiff  is divested of the means to argue and
>becomes
>> for that reason a victim. . . . A case of differend between two parties
>> takes place when the regulation of the conflict that opposes them is done
>> in the idiom of one of the parties while the wrong suffered by the other
>is
>> not signified in that idiom."
>> And:
>> "In this sense, a phrase that comes along is put into play within a
>> conflict between genres of discourse. This conflict is a differend, since
>> the success (or the validation) proper to one genre is not the one proper
>> to others."
>>
>> In other words, "takes place" and "put into play" do not have the same
>> urgency, which it seems to me, is neccessary for the diff to be different
>> from mere disagreement, or a case of apples and oranges. Sure, apples and
>> oranges are fine, and incommensurable, but they don't have anything to say
>> to each other. Why, for example, should we actively seek out the differend
>> between apples and oranges, and how would this defend the honour of
>thought.
>>
>> The particular "tenor" of the diff I'm wondering about is suggested, for
>> example, in this from "Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime":
>>
>> "This differend is to be found at the heart of sublime feeling: at the
>> encounter of the two absolutes equally present to thought, the
>> absolute whole when it conceives, the absolutely measured when it
>> presents.  Meeting conveys very little; it is more of a
>> confrontation, for, in accordance with its destination, which is to be
>> whole, the absolute of concepts demands to be presented....
>> Their being put into relation abolishes each of them as absolute.
>> But if each must remain the absolute it continues to be its own sole
>> recourse, its court of appeal, unaware of the other.  This conflict is
>> not an ordinary dispute, which a third instance could grasp and put
>> an end to, but a differend." (LAS 123-4)
>>
>> The opposing things of the diff don't just happen across each other, it's
>> not just a 'meeting'. Nor is it just a confrontation. The things are in a
>> state of 'demand'.
>>
>> So it seems to me that it's not just incommensurability but
>> indissociability that "defines" the diff.
>>
>> Reg
>>
>>
>>
>> At 01:03 AM 4/14/01 -0400, hugh bone wrote:
>> >Reg,
>> >
>> >That's not the way I remember it.  Don't have the book - maybe you could
>> >cite.  Apples and oranges aren't so bad.
>> >
>> >I never could start a discussion of "Le Differend" although there were a
>lot
>> >of interesting (to me) ideas.
>> >
>> >Best,
>> >Hugh
>> >
>> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >
>> >> Hi Hugh,
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure to what extent this has been discussed, but is it perhaps
>the
>> >> defining characteristic of a differend that two incommensurable
>positions
>> >> are somehow - necessarily - "locked-in", i.e. they just can't leave
>each
>> >> other/the issue alone. Like two fighters chained together - impossible
>to
>> >> turn their backs on one another.
>> >>
>> >> In the absence of this aspect we would just have apples and oranges. Or
>> >the
>> >> old saw "the opposite of a great truth is another great truth", which
>is
>> >> pretty uninteresting ... unless there is a singular dynamic which
>forever
>> >> "forces" the confrontation.
>> >> Any thoughts?
>> >>
>> >> Reg
>> >>
>> >> At 05:14 PM 4/13/01 -0400, hugh bone wrote:
>> >> >Hi Don, et. al.,
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, it was a great struggle over words.
>> >> >
>> >> >To over-simplify, a differend is a wrong for which one does not have
>the
>> >> >words to contest the accusation, or the words presented are thrown out
>of
>> >> >court etc..
>> >> >
>> >> >The Humpty-Dumpty meaning, from Alice in Wonderland, "A word means
>what I
>> >> >mean it to mean, no more and no less," seemed to prevail, at the end
>of
>> >the
>> >> >dispute.
>> >> >
>> >> >A few years ago, parts of "Le Differend" were on-line at U.Cal. at
>> >> >Irvine where Lyotard had taught, but don't know if it is there now.
>> >Don't
>> >> >have the link.
>> >> >
>> >> >Best,
>> >> >Hugh
>> >> >
>> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >> >
>> >> >> I have never been able to quite bring myself to buy the Differend.
>Are
>> >> >their
>> >> >> any internet papers that offer the Readers Digest version? I
>understand
>> >> >the
>> >> >> differend to be two incommensurable viewpoints with
>incommensurability
>> >> >being
>> >> >> a somewhat complex term.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I believe that the deal that was struck between the US and China was
>> >that
>> >> >> the Chinese leadership was allowed to tell their citizens that the
>US
>> >> >> apologized without the US objecting and that the US was allowed to
>tell
>> >> >> their citizens that they did not apologize without the Chinese
>> >objecting.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In other words they agreed to disagree but to keep their
>disagreements
>> >> >> private. Is that a sort of differend?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Or is a simple disagreement on what constitutes spying a differend?
>I
>> >have
>> >> >> heard the media criticized for calling the US plane a spy plane. In
>> >that
>> >> >> case spying is only done when the spy is in enemy territory.
>Apparently
>> >> >> China believes that spying is spying no matter where the spy
>resides.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Don
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
>