Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:29:13 +1100
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: openings onto the preface



Judy/Jerry/All,

The "real subject" is the title and subtitle, but the intention (on the back
of the book)
was to "do" philosophy.

In the "Index of Terms" I looked for "community", which is a recurring
thread that (for me) connects its philosophical concepts.  It wasn't listed.

The first community is mother and child.  The largest community (in theory
if not in fact) is the United Nations. The most powerful communities are the
corporate leaders of the super-corporations who control the world's
politicians.  (an opinion - not to be confused with a reading)

Biologist Richard Dawkins wrote a book, "The Selfish Gene", first edition
1976.
In this approach, each living organism is merely one more episode in the
life of the genes that constitute a species.

In the human species (and to some degree in other species) the community of
effort
achieved by phrases is essential to species-survival.  One cannot choose
genes and ancestors, nor can one choose language and phrases.

Genes don't make decisions, govern, control as humans do, yet recent
science, including stem cell research, demonstrates the inexorable power of
genetic determination.

By analogy, I read L.s approach to phrases as a scientific investigation,
and the power attributed to phrases in controlling our lives as useful
metaphor, similar to
genes, and similar also to deities and narratives in religion and myth.

regards,

Hugh













>
> you say
>
> >How to "read" "The Differend".
> >
> >Even though the book is entitled "The Differend," I keep finding
> >myself, as I read it and as I read discussions of it by others,
> >considering the differend *not* to be the real subject of the book,
> >but only the central example space by consideration of which the
> >real subject of the book can be illuminated. ...
> >
> >The real subject of the book seems to me to be the more general
> >topic of discourse genres and phrase regimes as impacting
> >(explaining) the very range of possibility for communication between
> >persons. (Or even the possibility of self-communication, of coherent
> >thought at all.)
>
>
> i get this too, although i wouldn't say the differend is not the real
> subject of the book--i'd say that presenting this state of affairs in
> terms of the differend, this questionable nature of our common notion
> of communication as mutual understanding (and relatedly,
> understanding of "private" thoughts) is a distinctive way of talking
> about language.
>
> In what way would you say the general topic of discourse genres and
> phrase regimens impacting the very range of possibililty of
> communication is more general than the differend?
>
>
> >
> >The "naive discourser" --I apologize for "discourser"; would
> >"speaker/writer/thinker" be more graceful?-- considers discourse to
> >be unitary, considers it possible --approprate, meaningful-- to
> >shift (naively) from one genre to another, from one phrase regime to
> >another, without considering (honoring) the very different criteria
> >for meaningfulness and validation and well-formedness and etc. that
> >are assumed/demanded by the different genres, the different phrase
> >regimes. (The naive discourser mistakenly believes there to be such
> >a thing as "language" in general. Cf. Thesis.)
> >
> >The naive discourser tends thus to discourse incoherently over an
> >extended period of time.
> >  The coherence of hir discourse is limited to the periods within
> >which either a single genre, or single phrase regime, is
> >instantiated or within which appropriate (regime-honoring)
> >transitions between genres or between regimes are made.
> >
> >(I take support for this way of reading the book from its Object:
> >which is *not* the differend, but the phrase.)
>
>
> Lyotard says (pp.xi-xii) that any phrase is at the cost of all those
> other phrases that could've been said.  that phrases are
> heterogeneous.  That any phrase wrongs all those others.  What do you
> think of this, related to what you're saying about the real subject
> of the book?
>
> >
> >
> >Can any of you appreciate the concern/interpretation that I expose
> >here enough to concur with me? Alternatively, can any of you
> >disabuse me of or correct any mistakes I am making in this?
> >
> >Jerry
>
> i'm not sure what your concern is.  But for me, the differend is (in
> that every phrase wrongs those other ones) central to what lyotard
> says about language ('the civil war of "language"' p.141), and I'm
> not sure what you mean when you say it is not the real subject and
> that it is just one example for illuminating the real subject, viz.
> "....the more general topic of discourse genres and phrase regimes as
> impacting (explaining) the very range of possibility for
> communication between persons. (Or even the possibility of
> self-communication, of coherent thought at all.)..."
>
> i don't know what you mean by saying the differend is an example of
> this.  What would be some other examples of it?  As I read this book,
> the differend is not an example of the questionable nature of
> coherent communication but is the (political) character of it, is
> what makes it questionable and problematic.
>
> p.xi  "...The title of this book suggests (through the generic value
> of the definite article) that a  universal rule of judgement between
> heterogeneous genres is lacking, in general..."   To me, this means
> that to the extent phrases, phrase regimens and genres of discourse
> are heterogeneous, the differend is ubiquitous and unavoidable.  Do
> you think so?  Does this relate to what you are saying?
>
> Judy
>
> --
>
>
>
>