File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2002/lyotard.0205, message 108


From: "Thomas Taylor" <taylorth-AT-bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: openings onto the preface
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 03:51:35 -0400


All:

I think we would all do well to remember that Lyotard is working with a
highly generalized and extended definition of "phrase". Even some types of
silences are phrases. There will be much to say about silences later.
Gestures can or cannot be phrases. What is necessary for a phrase to be a
phrase is that it present its universe (addressee, addressor, referent, and
meaning/sense). That is all.

Granted the phrase is here delineated with linguistic terminology, there is
no reason for us to think that phrases must be words. Keeping this in mind
will help us, I think, to understand some later moments in the book.

It is also important to remember that addressee-or are not there before the
phrase. This means, the subject comes with each presentation, almost like
the perpetual creation of the universe in the classic theologians.  There
are no subjects outside of the presentation of the phrase. This is fairly
strong statement, and I find Lyotard's philosophical (Wittgensteinian) tone,
an irony that makes me laugh out loud. I'm jumping ahead of what we have
read but, I think keeping in mind Lyotard's scrupulous analysis, and the
tension that this very genre will confront in attempting to bear witness to
the unspeakable will help us to understand his approach. For reasons I will
get to as we come to them, I read TD, not  simply in the input-output way
(words flow into my brain) but rather also as a performance. He does insist
in the introduction that the paragraphs should be read in order.

I hope everyone reads Hugh's email. It is a great outline of the rules of
Lyotard's game. He lays out from the start a very vigorous system, which he
will all along use as short hand, modify, etc.

Those are my chief concerns so far.  I'm sorry to say that sometimes I will
have to jump ahead in the book to explain what I mean to say. If I'm not
explicit enough feel free to ask me.

Oh, yes, another thing. The relation of time, thought, philosophy,
"writing". I find the last few paragraphs of the Reading Dossier very
important (Mode, Genre, Style, Reader, Author, Address).

 In Mode: the stakes of the philosophic discourse are finding the rules of
that very discourse. That is, its stakes are in finding its stakes, for it
has no stakes set in stone to begin with. There is a suspension in this
discourse, (the philosophical). As such it cannot be done with the
differends that it examines. He says that the discourse of the book cannot
"settle" the differends it confronts. Here we already have a case of a
differend (which the book itself might be a performance of). One between the
philosophical discourse and others which assume that a differend can be
translated transparently. For Lyotard, as we shall see, such a translation
is rather problematic. (thus the reasons for remaining in suspension).

In Genre: He marks the book as a sort of essay, which, again, has strong
ties with the French verb for "to try". An attempt to bear witness to
something without reducing it to a game one presupposes (a perhaps
impossible task). It might not be possible to acheive such a task within the
lines, so to speak. Perhaps we have to go between the lines. In this
paragraph, he directs us to read the book paragraph by paragraph in order. I
think that the book is about the inscription of a critical language
(phraseology, we could call it) which soon enough we as readers have become
attached to. It will run into walls and in many respects fail. But the
performance of this setting up, which also includes the disintegration of
what is set up, may be more the point the book than any set of prescriptive
claims. The performance, paragraph by paragraph, is the point, I think. An
allegory? Perhaps.

In Style and Reader: The suspension that allows for philosophy and
performance has nothing to do with gaining information more quickly. In
fact, it involves bearing witness to the differend in such a fashion that
its incommensurability with any rule bound game is respected. To do so is to
put oneself in a position that takes time, the time of a performance
(reading Euripedes is no substitute for the performace of The Bach.) In
later works this "state" will come as a form of resistance itself. The irony
in these paragraphs comes with a play on the nature of introductions: they
are supposed to give a summation of the work to follow in such fashion that
one might not have the need to read the work (cliff notes). He abbreviates
his name as "the A." while at the same time telling us, at the same time,
that such abbreviations, abbreviating, are exactly the problem. Reflection
takes time, and  the time it takes cannot be treated, worked with, in the
sense of a litigation that would result in a definitive answer.

In Address: He seems to be refering to a trend to get rid of the time it
takes to allow for what I have called suspension. To make this time
treatable. He felt that the sole addressee was: the "is it happening?". The
suspension itself. The "is it happening" is the instant of the presentation
of the phrase, which will always be forgotten since it is pre-phrasing.
Phrasing and the as-yet-to-be-phrased are always in a relation of differend,
and every phrase will carry with it a signal of this orginary differend (a
signal but not a sign). This differend, like any, is not translatable into
known languages, it remains liminal . I hope that I have, naive as I am,
begun to show how circular this all becomes once you begin to work it out
logically.

Cheers,

Rod T.
----- Original Message -----
From: "hbone" <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
To: <lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: openings onto the preface


> Eric wrote,
>
> > 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.
>
> Le Differend has 264 numbered paragraphs indexed as "terms" in the back of
> the book, and many pages of  "Notices" indexed in the front of the book..
> The most important words in Eric's paragraph above are included.
>
> Hopefully our collective readings clarify the possible meanings of that
> paragraph.
>
> Following are some steps I've found helpful in understanding L.'s unusual
> approach:
>
> 1) Think of language -  Months are necessary for a newborn to learn
> simplest words, and years are required to achieve adult competence in
> conversation.
>
>  2) Language is already here when a child begins to talk. The child has no
>  choice of a language.
>
>  3) Think of a judicial system:  Courts, Juries, Judges, Witnesses, rules
of
>  evidence, all sorts of rules regarding what may be "presented", when and
> how, and by whom.
>
>  4) Remember "present", or  "presentation".  It is a chapter in "Le
>  Differend".  The term is used over and over and over.
>
>  5) Think scenario/situation/wordgames.  If you read Wittgenstein you
>  understand how words acquire meaning in human situations.
>
>  6)  Instead of a court scene, visualize an informal but orderly meeting
of
> a  club in school or work place.  There are no formal "legal" rules, but
> formal  or informal rules of "order":  Who speaks, who is "recognized",
the
> routine of  "motions", "seconding" motion, voting, accepting the vote
> results etc.
>
> 7) Take one more step and realize that consciously or unconsciously
> everyone  observes important unwritten rules in all sorts of
> person-to-person and  person to group communication.
>
> 8) The scenario for ordinary communication includes:  Addressor, and
> Addressee. The subject matter to which the communication refers (Referent)
>  The content of the subject matter (Sense) which is
> Presented in a Phrase or a series of Phrases   The Referent is a chapter
of
> Le Differend.
>
> 9) Although silence, body language and other symbolic behavior convey
> messages, most communications are in words combined into phrases and
> sentences. (In the French language, a sentence is a phrase).
>
> 10) Think of  phrase, as minimal word or words to express an idea.  Single
> word phrases are often sentences and commands: Stop. Look. Listen. or more
> complex phrases:  Stop, look, and listen.
>
> 11) Lyotard treats the phrase as a building block of communication and
names
> it a Phrase Universe.
>
> 12) There are several basic types of phrases.  The "rules" applying to
their
> use and meaning are different for each type.
>
> 13) Lyotard names the rules a phrase "regimen".
>
> 14) Looking at all types of phrases and their regimens, Lyotard introduces
> the concept of Genres of Discourse.
>
> 15) Genres combine (link) separate phrases into extensive, complex
messages,
> statements, meanings. Lyotard describes rules governing this process as:
> "Rules for linking".  One chapter of Le Differend, "Genre, Norm", is about
> Genres of Discourse and rules for linking.
>
> In summary, for Lyotard, a speech act or utterance is a Presentation.
> It consists of :Phrases and presupposses: Addressor Addressee Referent
> Sense Phrase Universes, Phrase types, Phrase Regimens Genres of Discourse,
> Genre types, and rules for linking.
>
> regards,
> Hugh
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
>


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005