Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 16:22:10 -0700
From: Judy <jaw-AT-earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: openings onto the preface



steve, these are some of the main things that have captured my 
interest in the book as well:


>
>Differend and Disagreement: Disagreement as a concept is not to do 
>with words alone. We can say that it generally relates to the 
>situation in which speaking parties (co)exist. Here is where 
>disagreement differs from Lyotards construction of the differend. 
>For disagreement is not concerned with issues such as the 
>heterogeneous sentence regime, the presence and absence of rules for 
>assessing discourse. It is not about the arguing but with what can 
>be argued for example the existence or non-existence of a common 
>object that exists between two persons. The disagreement concerns 
>the presentation of the common object and is related to the 
>abilities of the presenters to present it.

An empirical as opposed to a grammatical proposition, as in Wittgenstein?



>....Now of course superficially this may be considered as being 
>within the phrase regime concept of the differend but for a couple 
>of things: within the political regime an uneasy agreement is often 
>temporarily reached and a consensus may or may not be challenged 
>think of the consensus like a scientific black box difficult to 
>unpack and change but possible if you wish to,  a predominant 
>consensus is perhaps inevitable, the structures of a disagreement 
>are founded on an argument which is a dispute over the object not a 
>rule.


the latter being a grammatical proposition--and as in Wittgenstein, 
the way in which these two are often confused by philosophers with 
the result that language goes on holiday.  Then, is this a seed of 
the discourse on the differend, this unspeakable conflict between the 
rules of grammatical propositions and the rules of empirical 
propositions, and its mystifying effects?   As mark said, 
Wittgenstein is all over the book.

(The possibility of having a disagreement over empirical facts 
presupposes consensus about grammatical norms, or the rules of the 
game).

judy
-- 

HTML VERSION:

Differend and Disagreement: Disagreement as a concept is not to do with words alone. We can say that it generally relates to the situation in which speaking parties (co)exist. Here is where disagreement differs from Lyotards construction of the differend. For disagreement is not concerned with issues such as the heterogeneous sentence regime, the presence and absence of rules for assessing discourse. It is not about the arguing but with what can be argued for example the existence or non-existence of a common object that exists between two persons. The disagreement concerns the presentation of the common object and is related to the abilities of the presenters to present it.

....Now of course superficially this may be considered as being within the phrase regime concept of the differend but for a couple of things: within the political regime an uneasy agreement is often temporarily reached and a consensus may or may not be challenged think of the consensus like a scientific black box difficult to unpack and change but possible if you wish to,  a predominant consensus is perhaps inevitable, the structures of a disagreement are founded on an argument which is a dispute over the object not a rule.