From: "fuller" <fuller-AT-bekkers.com.au>
Subject: Re: How many happenings to break 4 silences?
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 09:51:11 +0800


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Hello Steve,

(This is probably a summation of my thoughts so far (I am up to No. 40).)

I am confusing an Event with the Differend.

Hmm, of my reading of Lyotard (so far!!), the way I am thinking about it (to make sense in the Glen-reality), it seems the Differend is conflict over the rewriting of the Event (giving it a meaning). However, I think this is only one form of the Differend.

To take S11 as an example of an Event... a Differend may have occured between observers and the tactics of Bush Co. to rewrite the Events of S11 as resulting from an act of war.

When you ask 'does it help to define her as a victim', it probably would help someone, somewhere, who knows? Who knows what the intent would be of the rewriting of 'her' into a 'victim' (maybe to signify an injustice in her not receiving the Nobel Prize)?

The point to my post was that I was arguing there are no 'victims'. Victimhood is not an innate trait. I think this was maybe one of the points Badiou was attempting to raise(?? What do you think, Eric?).

(Steve, do you remeber how the Badiou episode precipitated? When I posted something about 'self-subjectifying victims', and you asked if I was arguing along the same lines as Badiou?... I said something about "WTF?" haha)

So the pursuit of justice (by rewriting an event so some participants are defined as 'victims' and others are not) may be but one Differend.

Victim, in the above sense, I would argue, is not the same way Lyotard uses the word.

In the above example 'victims' are given (maybe nowadays just the media-induced simulacra of) agency and, hence, a voice. In the efforts to combat an 'injustice'. That is people are woven into the discourse of victimhood.
However, from my understanding, Lyotard's victim has no voice at all, or, rather, 1) has no power to rewrite him/herself into existence after an Event (is silenced), or 2) Does not have the ability to rewrite him/herself into existence, or, for example, is not human.

I found myself doing exactly this last night, speaking (err, arguing;) with my girlfriend in a whole series of Socratic dialogues. Setting myself up to win the argument as soon as she agreed with my first proposition wiht I had constructed in such a way so to refuse agreement would be illogical (for her logic). I was silencing her side of the Differend by not enabling her to define the referent in a manner that was acceptable to both of us. I realised what I was doing and shut up long enough to let her redefine the referent.

I think this is the sense that he means "The Jews are no longer victims" by that I mean they have a voice. They are still victims from the (way they have been rewritten into existence which is of the) perspective of an 'injustice'. (No, I am not saying that it wasn't an injustice, I am saying that is the discourse they have been rewritten into, hence one of the problems with thinking of Israel as being an aggressor.)

I am sure I have not used the correct terminology. bah!

Glen.



  ----- Original Message -----
  From: hbone
  To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 12:48 PM
  Subject: Re: How many happenings to break 4 silences?



    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.     

HTML VERSION:

----- Original Message -----

From: hbone

To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 12:48 PM

Subject: Re: How many happenings to break 4 silences?

 

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.