File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2002/lyotard.0206, message 75


Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 15:48:40 +1100
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: How many happenings to break 4 silences?


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_N6wetFB7O799Bub9dLlJ6w)


  Steve wrote:


  Glen/Hugh

       can't we simply perceive victims of past and present holocausts, genocides, sucide bombers, military attacks, as murdered human beings?  They no longer exist. For them,  justice (Le Differend) is not an issue.
  Can you point me towards the paragraphs where 'Justice' and 'The Differend' are synonomous - which is how the above reads?

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Reply:

  Agree that the word : "Justice"  vs meaning of  the concept of  "Differend" are, in my reading,
  virtually synonomous. 

  Did Lyotard put in the book a single phrase with that precise definition?  Probably not. I find support for my reading in Nos. 21, 22, 23, 7, 8, and 9 

  Others may disagree, and that's what gives our mutual readings their value.

  The Index of Terms did list the term "Justice".  Those of us who have been through the U.S. schools
  have in memory a phrase:  "liberty and justice for all".

  In brief outline,   Justice implies a tribunal, authorized by God or History, or render judgement on e "Cases"  - situations wherein a 

  "Plaintiff" claims a "Wrong" was perpetrated by a "Defendant", and presents evidence for consideration by "Judge" and "Jury", as well as 

  "Witnesses"  who testify that the claims are true.

  The "Defendant", in turn, presents evidence and witnesses who are expected to prove the claims of the Plaintiff are false.

  IMHO, Justice is realized for the contending parties, and cognizant social authority, when 

  1) The decisions of Jury and Judge are consistent with the "truth" of the occurrence that gave rise to the claims, the "truth" of the evidence/testimony presented, and

  2) The decisions of Jury and Judge are consistent with the Law(s in effect when the contested 
  events occurred.

  regards,
  Hugh

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Likewise in the below where in the conflation of  justice and victims, which results in the recognition of the impossibility of  justice (and the differend as defined here) - the difficulty the argument has with one of the most documented events in recent history (the holocaust) does suggest that justice as a concept and assigned to a wholly definition of 'victim' is unacceptable. 

  The question is, in my view, related back to the absurdity of identifying the human subject who has suffered as a result of social and political oppression - as a victim. For example - the great scientist Rosalind Franklin - was she oppressed and cheated of the recognition she deserved (she should have been the fourth recipient of the Nobel prize) because she was Jewish (anti-semitism) or because she was a Woman (anti-woman). Does it help to define her as a victim?  or understand the specificities of her case as a person who struggled and was denied by reactionary idiots. Slowly as the idiots die, jurisprudence and the dominant discourses,  no longer obstruct the truth. 

  Of course Rosalind was not 'murdered', but then as Lyotard said 'Between the SS and the Jew there is not even a differend, because there is not even a common idiom...'  Perhaps then between the scientists who recieved the Nobel prize and the denial of her critical role - there is not even a differend because she is a woman? 

  But just as in the case of the Holocaust there is no silence - for one of the things 'we' must understand is that the holocaust is one of the most documented and spoken of events in history to define it and understand through the 'silence of the moslems' is simply to avoid the issue...

  "The destruction of  Nazism also leaves a silence after it..." 

  There are greater silences...

  regards
  steve



      -----------------
      I agree with you to some extent, however I would argue there is nothing 'simple' about (re)constructing 'victims' as 'murdered human beings'. 'Murder' and the 'human' do not have the simplicity of definitive meanings. One persons murder is another persons casuality, etc, etc. To reduce them to being murdered human beings is to efface one side of the differend, even though such an act may aid the 'victim'.

      However, I do agree with your final remark regarding justice not being an issue for the dead. So if justice is not for the dead, but justice is for victims, then who is the 'victim'? And if the differend is encountered in the pursuit of 'justice', then who is really seeking out justice?

      Perhaps it is (to get all cynical;) a case of the dead not being able to contest in the resolution of difference over their place as referents (as murdered human beings or casualties or whatever). 

      The dead do exist and are very 'real' (in the sense that they can 'exist' as referents, errr, kind of how 'God' can exist...)

      Justice would be for those 'affected' by how the dead are represented as referents, and part of that is the act of seeking out 'justice,' which may not be an encountering of the differend (an event). That is, before the differend of the phrase universe can be encountered, reality must be performed, or demonstrated, so that the differend can exist, part of that reality is of 'victims' requiring 'justice'. So my question is: who is the 'victim'?

      Glen.      



--Boundary_(ID_N6wetFB7O799Bub9dLlJ6w)

HTML VERSION:

 
Steve wrote:

Glen/Hugh
 can't we simply perceive victims of past and present holocausts, genocides, sucide bombers, military attacks, as murdered human beings?  They no longer exist. For them,  justice (Le Differend) is not an issue.
Can you point me towards the paragraphs where 'Justice' and 'The Differend' are synonomous - which is how the above reads?
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reply:
 
Agree that the word : "Justice"  vs meaning of  the concept of  "Differend" are, in my reading,
virtually synonomous.
 
Did Lyotard put in the book a single phrase with that precise definition?  Probably not. I find support for my reading in Nos. 21, 22, 23, 7, 8, and 9 
 
Others may disagree, and that's what gives our mutual readings their value.
 
The Index of Terms did list the term "Justice".  Those of us who have been through the U.S. schools
have in memory a phrase:  "liberty and justice for all".
 
In brief outline,   Justice implies a tribunal, authorized by God or History, or render judgement on e "Cases"  - situations wherein a
 
"Plaintiff" claims a "Wrong" was perpetrated by a "Defendant", and presents evidence for consideration by "Judge" and "Jury", as well as
 
"Witnesses"  who testify that the claims are true.
 
The "Defendant", in turn, presents evidence and witnesses who are expected to prove the claims of the Plaintiff are false.
 
IMHO, Justice is realized for the contending parties, and cognizant social authority, when
 
1) The decisions of Jury and Judge are consistent with the "truth" of the occurrence that gave rise to the claims, the "truth" of the evidence/testimony presented, and
 
2) The decisions of Jury and Judge are consistent with the Law(s in effect when the contested
events occurred.
 
regards,
Hugh
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
  Likewise in the below where in the conflation of  justice and victims, which results in the recognition of the impossibility of  justice (and the differend as defined here) - the difficulty the argument has with one of the most documented events in recent history (the holocaust) does suggest that justice as a concept and assigned to a wholly definition of 'victim' is unacceptable.

The question is, in my view, related back to the absurdity of identifying the human subject who has suffered as a result of social and political oppression - as a victim. For example - the great scientist Rosalind Franklin - was she oppressed and cheated of the recognition she deserved (she should have been the fourth recipient of the Nobel prize) because she was Jewish (anti-semitism) or because she was a Woman (anti-woman). Does it help to define her as a victim?  or understand the specificities of her case as a person who struggled and was denied by reactionary idiots. Slowly as the idiots die, jurisprudence and the dominant discourses,  no longer obstruct the truth.

Of course Rosalind was not 'murdered', but then as Lyotard said 'Between the SS and the Jew there is not even a differend, because there is not even a common idiom...'  Perhaps then between the scientists who recieved the Nobel prize and the denial of her critical role - there is not even a differend because she is a woman?

But just as in the case of the Holocaust there is no silence - for one of the things 'we' must understand is that the holocaust is one of the most documented and spoken of events in history to define it and understand through the 'silence of the moslems' is simply to avoid the issue...

"The destruction of  Nazism also leaves a silence after it..."

There are greater silences...

regards
steve

 
-----------------
I agree with you to some extent, however I would argue there is nothing 'simple' about (re)constructing 'victims' as 'murdered human beings'. 'Murder' and the 'human' do not have the simplicity of definitive meanings. One persons murder is another persons casuality, etc, etc. To reduce them to being murdered human beings is to efface one side of the differend, even though such an act may aid the 'victim'.
 
However, I do agree with your final remark regarding justice not being an issue for the dead. So if justice is not for the dead, but justice is for victims, then who is the 'victim'? And if the differend is encountered in the pursuit of 'justice', then who is really seeking out justice?
 
Perhaps it is (to get all cynical;) a case of the dead not being able to contest in the resolution of difference over their place as referents (as murdered human beings or casualties or whatever).
 
The dead do exist and are very 'real' (in the sense that they can 'exist' as referents, errr, kind of how 'God' can exist...)
 
Justice would be for those 'affected' by how the dead are represented as referents, and part of that is the act of seeking out 'justice,' which may not be an encountering of the differend (an event). That is, before the differend of the phrase universe can be encountered, reality must be performed, or demonstrated, so that the differend can exist, part of that reality is of 'victims' requiring 'justice'. So my question is: who is the 'victim'?
 
Glen.      

--Boundary_(ID_N6wetFB7O799Bub9dLlJ6w)--

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005