Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 01:06:00 -0800
Subject: Re: Query


EricMurph-AT-aol.com wrote:

-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--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT-

Hi Eric,

You have good suggestions for stimulating substantive dialogue.
More background on "sovereignty" and comparisons on "obligation" would
help.

I find the chapter on "obligation" in "Le Differend" relatively clear.
But it you want to compare with Levinas, post something from Levinas
or cite a book and I'll try to find the book.

In Lyotard's opening example of obligation he uses a religious 
example, the voice of God.

Although people may give you a strange look if you talk too much
about hearing voices, they talk glibly of the voice of conscience
and doing the right thing, taking care of your self-image, self-respect
and so on.

You hear a voice when you talk to yourself. And if you don't talk to
yourself, how do you know what you're going to say.  Sometimes you're
surprised.

So where does a voice, an interest, a motivation, a goal, an idea
you've never had before come from?

And for others on this list:  What parts of Lyotard's work do you find
intriguing and why?  What parts are boring? etc.


Hugh


> 
> I find a close relationship between Lyotard's comments on obligation and
> those of Levinas.  It seems that Lyotard here is working in the grove
> cultivated by Levinas, albeit pruning in a critical way.  For one thing, he
> seems to apply the ethical in a way that moves away from the religiousity
> often present in Levinas.
> 
> Lyotard almost wrote a extremely dense essay entitles "Levinas' Logic"
> translated in "The Lyotard Reader" that overlaps much of the discussion in
> "The Differend".   It would be useful to have a close reading and discussion
> on-line of these texts.  It would also be fruitful to discuss the ways in
> which Lyotard and Levinas differ.  However, it does seem hard to get any
> takers in this group.
> 
> Does anyone out there want to read first and talk later?