Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:32:18 -0800
Subject: Re: Query


Rossiter wrote:
> 
> Yours is the first message I've seen since I joined this list in early
> October.  I would be very interested to hear your ideas, but whether or not
> I could contribute much of value in return is questionable. Lyotard is one
> of many contemporary thinkers whose works I read indiscriminately and
> purely for pleasure, and I am most familiar with what he has to offer in
> the realm of art criticism. Perhaps your beginning will bring others of us
> out of the woodwork. Let us hope.
> 
> Theresa
-AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT-

There was quite a bit of discussion several months ago.  Hopefully
you'll get more replies.

I tried to find someone who was interested in his book: "Le Differend".
Not much luck.

In that book, Lyotard's discussion of  tribunals, judges,  witnesses,
and plaintiffs as a juridical matter, also lends insight into what
language can express and can't express.

For example:  If a defendant  can corrupt the judge, discredit the
testimony of witnesses, and impugn the sanity of the plaintiff,  he is
likely to escape punishment for the most heinous of crimes.

And what do we mean by terms such as: "truth",  "competence",
"obligation".?

"Obligation" is one of the Lyotard puzzles.  What is it that causes
one's "self" to be obliged?
 
For me, these concerns do relate to "sovereignty", but would like to
hear more about your thoughts.
 
Thanks,
Hugh Bone
> 
> hughbone-AT-worldnet.att.net