Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:04:26 -0800
Subject: Re: The scandal of obligation


Ariosto Raggo wrote:
> 
> Hugh wrote:
> >
> > Nothing I can prove, but reading "Le Differend", I think of necessity,
> > in his usage, as constraints imposed by language, the way we use it,
> > the way it must be used (necessary) for transfer of messages/meaning to
> > occur.
> >
> Isn't Lyotard problematizing the possibility of communication as the
> transfer of messages, the expression of meaning that would pretend to
> place the I in the instance of an addressor appealing to the consensus of a
> common measure or a genre of discourse reducing the plurality of possible
> linkages? As I read this notion(and I mean conceptualizing construct) of
> "genre of discourse" it is like the third term in the dialectic that
> obliterates the "interval" between the I and an other -- so in this sense
> it can be read as a 'commentary' on Levinas. Like in Bataille, Deleuze,
> Derrida, Levinas and lesser mortals it is always a question of
> thinking/producing the
> relation between the I and an other(includes trees, water, etc.) as an
> irreversible, asymmetrical relation where in fact there is an "absolution"
> of terms, a dissolution of all common measures; which furthermore is what
> produces _nobodies_ without property, qualities and whatever else could
> lead to a narrativizing elucidation of character ('good' ones no doubt).
> 
> Ariosto
-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-

Maybe.

Since I haven't read, heard nor thought about what you've written above,
I will just say what comes to mind.


>Isn't Lyotard problematizing the possibility of communication as the
> transfer of messages

Could be, if you mean he is simply philosophizing about the ever present
difficulty of picking the best words to do the job out your head,
sending them to the ears of another in the hope of some congruence
between his/her understanding these words, their sequence, inflection,
meaning and what you intended when you spoke the message.


>the expression of meaning that would pretend to
> place the I in the instance of an addressor appealing to the consensus >of a
> common measure

Why "pretend" to place the I in the instance of an addressor?
Don't communications involve addressor and addressee. A pretense sounds
like a feint, a false move intended to deceive, and yes, deception is
a form of communication. But when pretend to be an addressor and not
be an addressor?


> "genre of discourse" it is like the third term in the dialectic that
> obliterates the "interval" between the I and an other -- so in this >sense

This apparently refers to other philosophical statements which I don't 
recognize.

> it is always a question of
> thinking/producing the
> relation between the I and an other(includes trees, water, etc.) as an
> irreversible, asymmetrical relation where in fact there is an "absolution"
> of terms, a dissolution of all common measures


What would be a typical relation to each of the entities enumerated?

How would one know it was irreversible, asymetrical?

Does absolution mean forgiveness, and if so, what were the terms, and
what was their offense?

It is implied that the terms may have been common measures, so we would
have to identify them and describe them to each other, to know whether
we have in "mind" the same concepts.

And what, if anything, is the relationship between "absolution" and
"dissolution"?

Cheers,
Hugh