Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 01:53:25 -0800
Subject: Re: Query


Arturo Cherbowski 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-

On my netscape the reply shows the writer - as above, so if one doesn't
erase, but types as break or the word REPLY, and always signs the reply
it helps keep track of the authors. 

I remember you had a lengthy post on Capital, and I didn't at that time
want to get into a point-by-point reply.

You may have read my post to the effect that when published in English,
1989 I think, Lyotard considered it his most important book, which 
might be confirmed by the fact that Bayard Bell reported form Emory that
Lyotard is scheduled to teach a course on it next semester.

Which doesn't mean anyone has to consider it his best book, of course.

I thought you had brought up the topic of sovereignty, maybe not,
but perhaps you have some ideas.

Jon did a post which you may have missed.  It was serious.  I sent a 
reply.

Most lists have a lot of lurkers and that's fine.  Too many responses
can be nuisance.  And a lot of people are absent at times for whatever
reason, or just too busy.  Some responses may come back late; no
problem.

Cheers,
Hugh

-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--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT-
************************************************************************8



> Sorry for the silence with which I have responded for the last couple of
> days. . . I've been following the discussion (but has it really become a
> discussion? for after all Eric has a point when he says people raise
> questions but nothing sticks. . .people also throw around names but we
> never really talk about other related authors. . ) but I am somewhat
> confused. . .I seem to get some posts and not others. . . the last
> things I got were four consecutive posts by Eric, some in which he
> seemed to be responding to other posts. . . but which?  I do not have
> them, I do not think. . .or (very possibly) I am so dense I cannot
> follow even this as superficial and flighty as it has been. . . I also
> get the sense that some of you did not get some of my posts. . . For
> example, Jon did you get my nasty note in response to your snipe at
> Hugh?  did anybody get my diatribe about Capital?  if you did, then is
> it so boring or so wrong as to not even respond, not even to trash me or
> make fun of me?. . .damn, talk about silence and the differend. . .where
> did Levinas come up, I missed even that. . . anyways, a brief response
> until I am sure my posts are getting through and until I am sure this
> will stick for a while 'cause I do not want to waste my time again
> rambling if nobody recieves it or if nobody cares. . . yes, I think
> there is a lot in the Lyotard/Levinas relationship, even more than in
> the Derrida/Levinas one even though the later goes much more out of his
> way to claim the affinity, lineage, and hence even the
> property/propriety, almost as if he owned him. . . I do not think
> Lyotard on his part explicitly claims such affinity. . . anyways I do
> not think it matters much (at least not to me). . .what matters to me
> (and here I will continue to insist even if through a different route on
> what I was insisting before) is that the Lyotard that turns towards
> Freud and Kant (and away from Nietzsche but especially Marx), the
> Lyotard of "Le Differend" (which I for one do not consider such an
> important book, but only one more formulation of thetired theme of the
> other and language) as oppossed to the Lyotard of "Libidinal Economy" is
> as mystical and idealist (in both the technical and pejorative sense
> which given Hegel I think are very much the same or should be at least
> to all these frenchpost-structuralists) as the Levinas who spends a life
> pondering the ethical responsibility to the "Other" and does so
> admirably as long as the "Other" remains a formal, abstract and empty
> category but who then writes an essay on the incident at Sabra and
> Shatila in which the other suddenly becomes actual Palestinians and he
> can no longer deal. . .