Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:02:12 +0100
Subject: Re: Local determinism?


Glen

A note on 'Determinism'; determinism is not in itself necessarily scary, with
regard to Lyotard he uses this in terms which in another life I would have
defined and understood it as wide-range-determinism. This is not a scary
concept for me rather, if anything, the reverse... For example to se a physical
example - it was genetically determined that I have bluish eyes, it is not
determined that I am someone on the social and political left rather than a
fascist... This is a softer version of the below, which is the harder variant.

Determinism states that the world or nature is subject to causal law, that
every event has a cause. If this is true then every event that happens has to
happen, since it logically follows from a description of the conditions of its
occurance.... Some philosophers (Hume and Mill for example) have taken this
principle as being the general of the 'laws' of nature this is pre-modern
scientific thinking and is not generally applicable any longer.

regards

sdv

Glen Fuller wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Something that has always bugged me in TPC:ARoK is found in his section:
>
> "Thus the society of the future falls less within the province of a
> Newtonian anthropology (such as structuralism or systems theory) than a
> pragmatics of language particles. There are many different language games -
> a heterogeneity of elements. They only give rise to institutions in
> patches - local determinism."
>
> What do you guys think Lyotard means by 'local determinism'?
> What would be really cool is if anyone could point me in the direction of
> relevant texts to read.
>
> I have my own ideas, particularly relating to the extralinguistical
> construction of everyday life...
> The 'institutions in patches' I grasp, but the word 'determinism' has
> connotations that are just plain scary.
>
> Cheers,
> Glen.