File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2002/lyotard.0205, message 67


Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 21:09:40 +0100
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com>
Subject: Re: Wildcard: Skin and Constitution




Rod

How to reply.... I engaged in this discussion simply to point out that 
there has been a significant amount of writing that does not regard the 
differend as being simply acceptable in its own terms. That was my only 
aim in the intervention, my acceptance of the value of Lyotard's work is 
simply irrelevant. Whether you believe that the the historical 
inaccuracies are also important - considering they deal with the 
disenfranchisement of populations and the denial of history as a 
discipline - is not my issue but obviously yours. My own regard for 
Lyotard's work as a thinker is not the issue rather the inability you 
are showing to address the known and published critiques of  Lyotard's 
work is...

As for petty nihalisms - nice reference to Lyotard's neitzschean aspect 
but not my style...

defensive? nice point,  but keep your double binds to yourself.

regards
steve



Thomas Taylor wrote:

>Sure Steve,
>
>But "historical inaccuracies" and technical errors in Lyotard's works, or to
>reduce them to that is to put them within the cognitive genre which is also
>to miss the point in my opinion.
>
>"...one's analytical starting point" ?? What is yours: to break down
>Lyotard's work into a series of claims that can be safely and discretely
>verified or denied (the work of the cognitive genre at its best)?
>
>It is that state of mind itself that he is working against. The sympathy you
>claim to lack is the sympathy that he demands. A sympathy that is slow, that
>allows for anxiety-- thought, that is, rather than calculation. Enjoy your
>departure point, detail as you will. And be done with it as quickly and
>systematically as possible. Take a deep breath. (Yum!). Realizing that you
>have said all. But remember that judging on the basis of a rule (the rule
>of, say, historical accuracy,) is just another genre of phrases, and not an
>instance of the "is it happening?", affect, disorder, plaisir/doleur, etc.
>Not a suspension of linkages. Not indetermination. When we allow time for
>that, an absolute resistance is taking place. We cannot plan for it. Not
>even with the five point plan that the Soviets were so (in)famous for.
>
>In short, if your task is working out the historical inconsistencies of a
>philosopher, you'd be better off with someone like Foucault who foolishly
>takes "history" seriously. A good friend of mine offered me this advice
>(generally, not regarding Lyotard): "I once was excited by the project of
>the sceptics (Hume, Berkeley, and otherwise) as an incredible trajectory of
>resistence. My enthusiasm was checked when, after some reasoning, I realized
>that the skeptic line of argumentation removes the teeth from any argument
>about anything."
>
>Go ahead and go through Lyotard with a fine tooth comb. Be like Gorgias (see
>the Gorgias Notice in The Differend) and refute your petty nihilisms. But
>don't forget that such an act presupposes and institutes a nihilism in the
>same gesture.
>
>Defense, in the skeptic mode, is easy, and I am sure that will offer up
>something of this in response to my response. But in so doing, given that
>you assume each of us must have some convoluted "analytic starting point"
>rather than an affected one (which was Lyotard's starting point) you will
>deny the arrest and vunerability of enfance, which is for Lyotard, the last
>and absolute line of resisitance. And not something that anyone could ever
>programatize.  Against acceleration, against "analysis".
>
>I hope you enjoy in Faurissonian manner counting Lyotard's historical
>mistakes.  Be happy. Be cognitive.
>
>"Cheers"
>Rod T.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com>
>To: <lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
>Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 1:40 PM
>Subject: Re: Wildcard: Skin and Constitution
>
>
>>Eric
>>
>>Possibly not fair to Hugh - but then Hugh has consistently disliked
>>intertextual referencing in the way necessary to address these kinds of
>>issues.... still you are right (unabject apologies).
>>
>>But fair to the list - I listed the texts, not simply as directly
>>critical works on the 'differend' but as texts which are written against
>>the perspectives contained within it - in which case Badiou's work is
>>directly relevant. The Browning book for instance is a sustained
>>critique of Lyotard's approach which produces some appropriate questions
>>directly relevant to the subject/questions being asked. (lyotard's
>>rejection of critique in the earlier texts should perhaps be brought
>>into play here...) The Habermas and Ranciere work is relevant in this
>>regard - however they all are because they throw up issues which a
>>positive critique would have to answer.
>>
>>Zizek's condemnation of Lyotard as a liberal in the line of Popper is
>>perhaps a more damming indictment but then this depends on your
>>analytical starting point ...
>>
>>Actually Eric if anyone was going to write a 'critical work' that
>>engages in the ground of 'the differend' in a sympathetic critique - it
>>should be you... Personally I'm simply not sympathetic enough to the
>>arguments/perspective that Lyotard invokes,  and would be too harsh on
>>the historical inaccuracies to write such a text - indeed that may be
>>the core reason why such a text has not been written... The differend
>>has the same strengths and weaknesses as all of Lyotard's work when
>>scrutinised closely issues arise which shouldn't be avoided...
>>
>>regards
>>
>>steve
>>
>>Mary Murphy and Eric Salstrand wrote:
>>
>>>All,
>>>
>>>Steve, I think you are being somewhat unfair to Hugh here. He has
>>>
>certainly
>
>>>raised an interesting question:
>>>
>>>Why isn't there a direct commentary specifically devoted to "The
>>>Differend?"
>>>
>>>Since Lyotard joked in his reading dossier that there was no real need
>>>
>for
>
>>>someone in a hurry to read his book once he stated its contents, it seems
>>>fitting there should exist a critical work at least equal in length to
>>>
>the
>
>>>original, especially if you consider,as I do, that "The Differend" is
>>>Lyotard's most important work.
>>>
>>>The truth is even though there is a fair amount of criticism on Lyotard
>>>
>out
>
>>>there, I don't know of anything that does what Hugh says - namely, deal
>>>directly with "The Differend" on a chapter by chapter basis.
>>>
>>>Of the books you mentioned, I must admit I am only familiar with "Lyotard
>>>and the Political" by James Williams. (I don't think Badiou's Ethics
>>>
>really
>
>>>counts as direct Lyotard criticism. He apparently wrote a critical review
>>>of The Differend, however, and this I would love to read!)
>>>
>>>Williams also wrote another introductory book entitled "Lyotard, Towards
>>>
>a
>
>>>Postmodern Philosophy."  I personally think that James Williams is
>>>critical, but fair, with regard to Lyotard and feel both of his two books
>>>are very much worth reading. Neither of these books, however, really
>>>constitute the specific detailed critique of The Differend that Hugh is
>>>asking for. Nor do the other books you mention appear to really do the
>>>
>job.
>
>>>My two favorite book-length studies on Lyotard are Bennington's "Lyotard:
>>>Writing the Event" which Rod also mentioned. It does spend close to
>>>
>seventy
>
>>>pages discussing "The Differend" but Bennington's approach is more
>>>
>thematic
>
>>>than direct. (I agree with Rod, however, that this book is a must read if
>>>you are really interested in Lyotard.)
>>>
>>>The other favorite book is "Introducing Lyotard: Art and Politics" by
>>>
>Bill
>
>>>Readings. This book is more of a general account of Lyotard's philosophy,
>>>but it is very insightful and very well written. Tragically, Readings
>>>
>died
>
>>>a few years after this book was published.
>>>
>>>Since we have been discussing Nancy lately, let me give you his criticism
>>>of "The Differend" in paraphrase form from Williams: "the essence of
>>>Nancy's argument...is that Lyotard's opposition of the differend and a
>>>differend cannot be maintained. That is, if there is a general differend
>>>between the presentation brought forth by any phrase and any situation of
>>>that presentation, then to speak of a particular differend is already to
>>>fail to do justice to the differend in general. This is because the
>>>isolation of a particular conflict is already a situation of a
>>>presentation."
>>>
>>>To me, this appears to merely use one sophistry to counteract another (if
>>>you lose i win and therefore must be paid) and fails to deal with the
>>>
>main
>
>>>issues at stake in the differend as well as the question of presentation
>>>that Lyotard addresses, but this argument may help to shed some
>>>
>additional
>
>>>light on Nancy's own approach to the inoperative community.
>>>
>>>With regard to you, Rod, I certainly wouldn't think of accusing you of
>>>attempting to supplant Lyotard, but rather I think, in a certain sense,
>>>this is exactly the obligation Lyotard has passed on to all of us who
>>>remain interested in him. This task of rewriting Lyotard, rewriting The
>>>Differend, has fallen into our hands, now that he has gone. We must
>>>
>because
>
>>>we can!
>>>
>>>It is interesting, Rod, what you write about Bennington. I just read an
>>>essay by him in which he acknowledges that he lost the thread of Lyotard
>>>during the last decade of Lyotard's life and was only lately beginning to
>>>catch up with him again.
>>>
>>>I agree as well that Lyotard's later work shows the fugitive signs of
>>>another Lyotard beginning to slowly emerge. We need to link up these
>>>
>works
>
>>>together to rewrite the differend - in order that the tattooed petaled
>>>flesh may flower and the branded child who remains in bondage may sing.
>>>
>>>The task at hand:
>>>
>>>1. create a detailed commentary on "The Differend"
>>>
>>>2. write a sequel to "The Differend" based upon the following set of
>>>
>books:
>
>>>The Inhuman
>>>Postmodern Fables
>>>Lectures d'enfance
>>>Signed, Malraux
>>>Soundproof Room
>>>The Confession of Augustine
>>>
>>>Am I missing anything here?
>>>
>>>eric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>


HTML VERSION:

Rod

How to reply.... I engaged in this discussion simply to point out that there has been a significant amount of writing that does not regard the differend as being simply acceptable in its own terms. That was my only aim in the intervention, my acceptance of the value of Lyotard's work is simply irrelevant. Whether you believe that the the historical inaccuracies are also important - considering they deal with the disenfranchisement of populations and the denial of history as a discipline - is not my issue but obviously yours. My own regard for Lyotard's work as a thinker is not the issue rather the inability you are showing to address the known and published critiques of  Lyotard's work is...

As for petty nihalisms - nice reference to Lyotard's neitzschean aspect but not my style...

defensive? nice point,  but keep your double binds to yourself.

regards
steve



Thomas Taylor wrote:
Sure Steve,

But "historical inaccuracies" and technical errors in Lyotard's works, or to
reduce them to that is to put them within the cognitive genre which is also
to miss the point in my opinion.

"...one's analytical starting point" ?? What is yours: to break down
Lyotard's work into a series of claims that can be safely and discretely
verified or denied (the work of the cognitive genre at its best)?

It is that state of mind itself that he is working against. The sympathy you
claim to lack is the sympathy that he demands. A sympathy that is slow, that
allows for anxiety-- thought, that is, rather than calculation. Enjoy your
departure point, detail as you will. And be done with it as quickly and
systematically as possible. Take a deep breath. (Yum!). Realizing that you
have said all. But remember that judging on the basis of a rule (the rule
of, say, historical accuracy,) is just another genre of phrases, an d not an
instance of the "is it happening?", affect, disorder, plaisir/doleur, etc.
Not a suspension of linkages. Not indetermination. When we allow time for
that, an absolute resistance is taking place. We cannot plan for it. Not
even with the five point plan that the Soviets were so (in)famous for.

In short, if your task is working out the historical inconsistencies of a
philosopher, you'd be better off with someone like Foucault who foolishly
takes "history" seriously. A good friend of mine offered me this advice
(generally, not regarding Lyotard): "I once was excited by the project of
the sceptics (Hume, Berkeley, and otherwise) as an incredible trajectory of
resistence. My enthusiasm was checked when, after some reasoning, I realized
that the skeptic line of argumentation removes the teeth from any argument
about anything."

Go ahead and go through Lyotard with a fine tooth comb. Be like Gorgias (see
the Gorgias Notice in The Differend) and refute your petty nihilisms. But
don't forget that such an act presupposes and institutes a nihilism in the
same gesture.

Defense, in the skeptic mode, is easy, and I am sure that will offer up
something of this in response to my response. But in so doing, given that
you assume each of us must have some convoluted "analytic starting point"
rather than an affected one (which was Lyotard's starting point) you will
deny the arrest and vunerability of enfance, which is for Lyotard, the last
and absolute line of resisitance. And not something that anyone could ever
programatize. Against acceleration, against "analysis".

I hope you enjoy in Faurissonian manner counting Lyotard's historical
mistakes. Be happy. Be cognitive.

"Cheers"
Rod T.
----- Original Message -----
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com>
To: <lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Wildcard: Skin and Constitution


Eric

Possibly not fair to Hugh - but then Hugh has consistently disliked
intertextual referencing in the way necessary to address these kinds of
issues.... still you are right (unabject apologies).

But fair to the list - I listed the texts, not simply as directly
critical works on the 'differend' but as texts which are written against
the perspectives contained within it - in which case Badiou's work is
directly relevant. The Browning book for instance is a sustained
critique of Lyotard's approach which produces some appropriate questions
directly relevant to the subject/questions being asked. (lyotard's
rejection of critique in the earlier texts should perhaps be brought
into play here...) The Habermas and Ranciere work is relevant in this
regard - however they all are because they throw up issues which a
positive critique would have to answer.

Zizek's condemnation of Lyotard as a liberal in the line of Popper is
perhaps a more damming indictment but then this depends on your
analytical starting point ...

Actually Eric if anyone was going to write a 'critical work' that
engages in the ground of 'the differend' in a sympathetic critique - it
should be you... Personally I'm simply not sympathetic enough to the
arguments/perspective that Lyotard invokes, and would be too harsh on
the historical inaccuracies to write such a text - indeed that may be
the core reason why such a text has not been written... The differend
has the same strengths and weaknesses as all of Lyotard's work when
scrutinised closely issues arise which shouldn't be avoided...

regards

steve

Mary Murphy and Eric Salstrand wrote:

All,

Steve, I think you are being somewhat unfair to Hugh here. He has
certainly
raised an interesting question:

Why isn't there a direct commentary specifically devoted to "The
Differend?"

Since Lyotard joked in his reading dossier that there was no real need
for
someone in a hurry to read his book once he stated its contents, it seems
fitting there should exist a critical work at least equal in length to
the
original, especially if you consider,as I do, that "The Differend" is
Lyotard's most important work.

The truth is even though there is a fair amount of criticism on Lyotard
out
there, I don't know of anything that does what Hugh says - namely, deal
directly with "The Differend" on a chapter by chapter basis.

Of the books you mentioned, I must admit I am only familiar with "Lyotard
and the Political" by James Williams. (I don't think Badiou's Ethics
really
counts as direct Lyotard criticism. He apparently wrote a critical review
of The Differend, however, and this I would love to read!)

Williams also wrote another introductory book entitled "Lyotard, Towards
a
Postmodern Philosophy."  I personally think that James Williams is
critical, but fair, with regard to Lyotard and feel both of his two books
are very much worth reading. Neither of these books, however, really
constitute the specific detailed critique of The Differend that Hugh is
asking for. Nor do the other books you mention appear to really do the
job.
My two favorite book-length studies on Lyotard are Bennington's "Lyotard:
Writing the Event" which Rod also mentioned. It does spend close to
seventy
pages discussing "The Differend" but Bennington's approach is more
thematic
than direct. (I agree with Rod, however, that this book is a must read if
you are really interested in Lyotard.)

The other favorite book is "Introducing Lyotard: Art and Politics" by
Bill
Readings. This book is more of a general account of Lyotard's philosophy,
but it is very insightful and very well written. Tragically, Readings
died
a few years after this book was published.

Since we have been discussing Nancy lately, let me give you his criticism
of "The Differend" in paraphrase form from Williams: "the essence of
Nancy's argument...is that Lyotard's opposition of the differend and a
differend cannot be maintained. That is, if there is a general differend
between the presentation brought forth by any phrase and any situation of
that presentation, then to speak of a particular differend is already to
fail to do justice to the differend in general. This is because the
isolation of a particular conflict is already a situation of a
presentation."

To me, this appears to merely use one sophistry to counteract another (if
you lose i win and therefore must be paid) and fails to deal with the
main
issues at stake in the differend as well as the question of presentation
that Lyotard addresses, but this argument may help to shed some
additional
light on Nancy's own approach to the inoperative community.

With regard to you, Rod, I certainly wouldn't think of accusing you of
attempting to supplant Lyotard, but rather I think, in a certain sense,
this is exactly the obligation Lyotard has passed on to all of us who
remain interested in him. This task of rewriting Lyotard, rewriting The
Differend, has fallen into our hands, now that he has gone. We must
because
we can!

It is interesting, Rod, what you write about Bennington. I just read an
essay by him in which he acknowledges that he lost the thread of Lyotard
during the last decade of Lyotard's life and was only lately beginning to
catch up with him again.

I agree as well that Lyotard's later work shows the fugitive signs of
another Lyotard beginning to slowly emerge. We need to link up these
works
together to rewrite the differend - in order that the tattooed petaled
flesh may flower and the branded child who remains in bondage may sing.

The task at hand:

1. create a detailed commentary on "The Differend"

2. write a sequel to "The Differend" based upon the following set of
books:
The Inhuman
Postmodern Fables
Lectures d'enfance
Signed, Malraux
Soundproof Room
The Confession of Augustine

Am I missing anything here?

eric









Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005