Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:48:44 -0400
From: hugh bone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Differend



Reg wrote,

> 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,

I never heard of Aesthetics-L.  Generally speaking, I think analytic
mastery should always be challenged. Conflict in forums is interesting, but
only the individuals who comprise forums are living humans who experience
"being", sublime, or otherwise.

Discussion of what Lyotard or others disclose of their own experience
sometimes assists the discussants in understanding their personal
experiences.  Disagreement over what L. and others
"meant" is inevitable because words are an inadequate means of expression.
Conflict in fora becomes rhetoric, drama, histrionics, gossip, pastime.

If conflict acquires political dimensions, gets off the page and into the
streets, say Cincinnati, it is not longer merely a matter of what one can
say about what others have said.  It is what one can do about what others
have done.

> 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
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>