The Issue concerns not only Plato’s ‘remembering’ or ‘rexollection’, but also Kierkegaard’s ‘contemporary’. The question always involves the position of exclusion that argues itself as an axiom of a total inclusion of agents. Not “why”, but “how is this possible”.
in the instance of Lyotard and (now im reading it) the postmodern condition the question remains: How is this possible?
and this is not a kind of horn tooting self aggrandizement; it is an appeal, a call (Laruelle), a wonderment. The question (Badiou) is how i am able to anticipate this reading with no prior scholarly eduxation or proper philosophical training?
This is the postmodern issue. As Lyotard so elequently and strategizally forumlates. The issue now (40years later) has gotten no further than what is modern, still!
The result of time, then, or what amounts to the issue going nowhere in 40 years, is that there are those who indeed see that we have gotten somewhere such that this essay resonnates even more now than it did then. The issue of time itself, even as we consider Hiedegger and his moment. is revealing itself as no longer as issue of “being-there”, but because of the situation that Lyotard desribes even as it is misunderstood.
We find that it took probably roughly 4000 years for our human brain to begin to comprhend itself. it should be no wonder that in 40 years we have barely taken another step. And yet again, Lyotard has laid the reason for the rebuttal out in this essay, even as so many will deny it, even as it is already explained.
it is a wonder…
we find the issue at hand (this moment) in the momentization of ‘postmodern’. And we find the issue where the Postmoderns (Lyotard included) fail, or rather, must relinquish what they are finding (found) due to the virtue of what they find in the liberal maxim of the universite (which he appears to note earlier in this essay as a kind of ‘failed’ moment); Lyotard and the PMs thus mark a significant point of history wherein philosophy begins to have to function within an enclosure, a situatikn that they have to hide, and indeed may be hidden to them, but nevertheless thus mark notice.
what we have ti ask of Lyotard is just what is to occur, and not why it may be occurring. we ask what is offending as he writes, and as we read. It is terrible to threaten elimination only if the possible is against you. we must ask what is being left out in his essay when he says “social bond”. Is it not the posiion by which he gains his social stature? Yet, is he not also referencing merely that aspect which is de facto asserted by its denial? which is to ask: Why does he indict the German concept of the University, Humboldt and Fitche and such; Hegel. what is he producing and, by that act, also hiding?
It is not “the” social bond; i would say it is the bond where and within which ‘experts’ decide by implicit agreement what knowlege is valid; the experts, at least in one case, those who know due to the production which would eliminate all dissection. He thus appears in a moment where he could describe from a distance as his position still held a plausible denial of implicit involvment. What happens when that plausibility fails?
The issue is not the threat; the issue is that we cannot eliminate. It is not so much that it is unethical because of some social bond. He is describing a logistical situation of the condition that modernity enacts as an imperative of a particular mode of existence, which is in this case, that mode of truth that gains its veracity through production. No longer production answers to truth — and or, he is the terrorist.
when the issue comes into focus as a historical matter over a matter of reality (reality concerns the enforcment of truth through power and efficient (re-) production of that power), then we begin to bring in rhe concept of resiliency: That which persists despite the (Freire) game of oppression that nearly every oppressed person starts playing. The oppressed are not becoming ‘free’ as much as they are learning how to play the game, which in this case, is the game of production, and not of being. Or rather, the valid manner by which one can be said to ‘Be’ is by being a product that produces, and by this scheme, the one who produces most efficiently (makes the most money) is the best Being, the Being that has the right to exist. It is no wonder, then, what the American dream is: It is the old rock and roll rubric of ‘selling ones soul’.
But with the caveat that it doesn’t matter because of the implicit want of the oppressed, the teaching of the game through their oppression, to be the oppressor. And it’s all good because they do t have to recognize the ethical co tradition involved because the rules of the game tell us that if we produce and that is the only thing we are concerned with, the. We will be rewarded life.
And No one will hear the(See rebuttals against Laruelle). The call.