Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:48:36 -0800
Subject: Re: Query - Judging/Criteria


Mark Bower wrote:
> 
> >Couldn't find such a statement in "Le Differend".  Did find some words
> >about vengeance and other tribunals/criteria which a vengeful person
> >might seek.
> 
> Judging without criteria is an idea that comes from _Just Gaming_.
> 
> >Watching nature movies, one sees some animals instruct/discipline their
> >young with noises, facial expressions, etc. to avoid danger.  Is this a
> >a primitive example  of a priori morals built into genes?  Would an
> >animal parent who had never experienced danger instruct its offspring
> >in this manner?
> >
> >Animals also use scent, claw marks on trees, etc. to define territories.
> >Do these acts involve judgements or criteria.
> 
> I don't think so.  Judgment, at least how Kant defined it(and how Lyotard
> seems to define it), requires speech. 

REPLY:  There must be other definitions.  I think Lyotard says there is
no "last phrase".

Judgments must be spoken.  When I
> buy something, have I judged?  I would say that I haven't, because I
> haven't made my criteria explicit. 

REPLY: But Lyotard treats silence and body language as "phrases" and a 
form of communication.  Other species function, act and survive or
perish in life-or-death situations without words. 

As I have said before, this is a key to my interest in Lyotard:  A way
of looking at human languages of body, mind, senses, the arts.  An
approach to what makes us human "beings"; an approach to inquiry as to
who we are.

  I think that Lyotard, in saying that we
> ought to judge without criteria, is saying that we should not make judgment 
> a matter of mere rule application.  That our judgments should question the
> rules, or bring new rules into being.  Another part of this is that I don't
> think that most of the time we are aware of the criteria upon which our
> judgments are based.  In the act of judging I think we become aware of
> these criteria. 

REPLY:  An emphatic yes, with minor qualification:  Awareness of
criteria
is an opportunity we often fail to use.
> 
> >Other thoughts:  Being "non-judgmental" about the sins of other humans
> >seems to have some value in calming passions, correcting error etc.
> 
> Is being non-judgmental a good thing?  What do we mean when we say this?  

REPLY: Depends.  If your 4-year old continues to run into the busy
street without looking, not judging is a bad thing.

> Can we be indifferent to the wrongs that are done?  Would this be good even
> if it were possible?

REPLY:  Depends a lot on proximity.  If your neighbor is screaming from
a beating by intruders, disturbing your sleep it's almost impossible to
be indifferent.  If someone miles away has this problem it just another
statistic.

  If it means "keeping one's 'judgments' silent" then
> how are we ever to become aware of our criteria? 

REPLY:  Good point.  But how many wrongs are we, individually
responsible 
for?  Techniques of governments, corporations, the media flood us with
wrongs throughout our neighborhoods, cities, states, the world, in order
to advance the interests of politicians, the profits of stockholders,
the sales and profits of advertisers.

It seems that the > differend is a situation in which someone's judgment
is silenced.  Bearing
> witness to the differend is judging, but not judging according to the
> criteria of religions or  ideologies.

REPLY:  I think the differend is the situation of a complainant who is
deprived of remedy for the wrong suffered, including, but not limited 
to, being silenced.  

And I believe Lyotard's intent re: judgement and criteria
was along the lines you suggest.  However, such criteria permeate 
individual memory and tradition.  

Atheists, anarchists, and other less self-conscious persons accept
and act on concepts of rights, wrongs, fairness, equality, which are
part of their heritage from religion and other ideologies.

Hugh