From: "Eric Salstrand and Mary Murphy" <ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: openings onto the preface
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 10:05:05 -0500


One of the things I want to suggest, as we get ready to discuss "The
Differend" is for us to consider the extent to which this book arises
out of "The Postmodern Condition".  In the latter book, Lyotard writes
in the Introduction:

"The philosopher at least can console himself with the thought that the
formal and pragmatic analysis of certain philosophical and
ethico-political discourses of legitimation, which underlies the report,
will subsequently see the light of day."

"The Differend" appears to be exactly that book!

Also, the basic working hypothesis of "The Postmodern Condition" with
its emphasis upon the changing status of knowledge and the crisis of
legitimation seems central as well to the concerns of "The Differend".
In TPC this situation is analyzed in terms of language games, a term
Lyotard borrows from Wittgenstein.  It is interesting to note that in TD
Lyotard drops this terminology. Thus the question needs to be raised -
what provoked this change?

A hint, perhaps, is given in the following quote from TPC:

"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 are the characteristics of these language games? Lyotard speaks of
four elements.

1. The rules do not carry within themselves their own legitimation, but
are the object of a contract.
2. Without rules, there is no game.
3. The principle of a general agonistics applies. This does not mean
simply that one plays to win. "A move can be made for the sheer pleasure
of its invention."
4. The observable social bond is composed of such moves. 

It could also be argued that the entire thrust of TPC, simplifying to
the extreme, is to present a differend between two modes of
legitimation; namely that of the performative versus that of paralogy.
Do these concerns continue to find an echo in TD?

What is interesting is to observe both how many of these concerns still
remain and also how the ground subtly shifts in the TD.

As to the question of whether or not TD is actually about something else
besides the differend, keep in mind that the first chapter is entitled
"The Differend" but it is then followed by six additional chapters on
other topics which at times seem only tangentially connected with the
concept of the differend itself.

Without getting too ahead of things here, let me say this. The differend
appears as the interface of a conflict that cannot be fully presented
simply because it is not a litigation. 

What underlies the differend is a sublime event that is either
unpresentable or present, but only present in the sense that "it is
happening" precedes "what is happening". As such, TD might be construed
as "presenting" a kind of negative ontology, even though Lyotard is on
record as having rejected this terminology.

That is another topic that will be interesting to consider as we re-read
and discuss the book.

eric