Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 13:07:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Query - Sovereignty


Arturo,
   

Welcome back. Your posts remind me of Brecht a little.  Ethics is the the
concern of those who already have food in their bellies. While I probably
would tend to argue that there is a legitimate space for ethics, even in this
society, I think your point is well taken.  If Lyotard has significance to us
it is primarily in his political sense as the philosopher of the differend.
 Understanding of differends must lead us into political praxis. The danger I
think is that if we move immediately to political practice, we may risk
either fascism or co-option.

I assume you are writing from America (if not, let me know).  I do and remain
pessimistic concerning the immediate prospects for politics in this country.
 No significan movement that I am aware of is now capable of challenging the
growing concentration of wealth and power.  There is a diminished lack of any
countervailing structures that would hold the media/corporate/government
shadowslands complex accountable.

I would like to hear more from you concerning the relation of Capital and
time.  I agree this is an important theme in Lyotard as well as for politics
in general.  I would also like to discuss Libidinal Economy with you in more
detail.  

I envision this discussion as a kind of weave.  I have no interest in
discussing one book after another on the net in some kind of linear fashion.
 Rather, my hope is that we all reread Lyotard vertically as it were, topic
by topic and attempt to situate him by political issues whenever possible.
 Thinking beyond representation does not meet becoming abstract, boring  and
irrelevant.

I think Libidonal Economy is relevant to the issues of time, Marx and capital
we have been discussing.  I also think there are links here to Bataille.  As
I see it the notion of the General Economy and Anti-Oedipus are both lurking
in the background of this book.  
What is our obligation to the call of the Libidinal?