only if...
This link has been bookmarked by 42 people . It was first bookmarked on 19 Jun 2007, by Mike Wesch.
-
12 Aug 14
-
18 Jan 14
-
21 Oct 13
-
the status of knowledge is altered
-
This transition has been under way since at least the end of the 1950s, which for Europe marks the completion of reconstruction.
-
for the last forty years the “leading” sciences and technologies have had to do with language:
-
Its two principal functions – research and the transmission of acquired learning-are already feeling the effect, or will in the future.
-
As for the second function, it is common knowledge that the miniaturisation and commercialisation of machines is already changing the way in which learning is acquired, classified, made available, and exploited.
-
The nature of knowledge cannot survive unchanged within this context of general transformation. It can fit into the new channels,
-
We can predict that anything in the constituted body of knowledge that is not translatable in this way will be abandoned and that the direction of new research will be dictated by the possibility of its eventual results being translatable into computer language.
-
The “producers” and users of knowledge must now, and will have to, possess the means of translating into these languages whatever they want to invent or learn
-
Along with the hegemony of computers comes a certain logic, and therefore a certain set of prescriptions determining which statements are accepted as “knowledge” statements.
-
Research on translating machines is already well advanced.”
-
We may thus expect a thorough exteriorisation of knowledge with respect to the “knower,”
-
The old principle that the acquisition of knowledge is indissociable from the training (Bildung) of minds, or even of individuals, is becoming obsolete and will become ever more so.
-
Knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold, it is and will be consumed in order to be valorised in a new production: in both cases, the goal is exchange.
-
Knowledge ceases to be an end in itself, it loses its “use-value.”
-
-
07 Aug 12
-
26 Mar 12
-
The nature of knowledge cannot survive unchanged within this context of general transformation. It can fit into the new channels, and become operational, only if learning is translated into quantities of information.”
-
Knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold, it is and will be consumed in order to be valorised in a new production: in both cases, the goal is exchange.
-
Knowledge ceases to be an end in itself, it loses its “use-value.”
-
It is conceivable that the nation-states will one day fight for control of information, just as they battled in the past for control over territory, and afterwards for control of access to and exploitation of raw materials and cheap labor. A new field is opened for industrial and commercial strategies on the one hand, and political and military strategies on the other.
-
The ideology of communicational “transparency,” which goes hand in hand with the commercialisation of knowledge, will begin to perceive the State as a factor of opacity and “noise.”
-
Already in the last few decades, economic powers have reached the point of imperilling the stability of the state through new forms of the circulation of capital that go by the generic name of multi-national corporations.
-
These new forms of circulation imply that investment decisions have, at least in part, passed beyond the control of the nation-states.” The question threatens to become even more thorny with the development of computer technology and telematics.
-
In this light, the new technologies can only increase the urgency of such a re-examination, since they make the information used ‘in decision making (and therefore the means of control) even more mobile and subject to piracy.
-
It is not hard to visualise learning circulating along the same lines as money, instead of for its “educational” value or political (administrative, diplomatic, military) importance; the pertinent distinction would no longer be between knowledge and ignorance, but rather, as is the case with money, between “payment knowledge” and “investment knowledge”
-
If this were the case, communicational transparency would be similar to liberalism. Liberalism does not preclude an organisation of the flow of money in which some channels are used in decision making while others are only good for the payment of debts.
-
What is required of a working hypothesis is a fine capacity for discrimination.
-
In the first place, scientific knowledge does not represent the totality of knowledge; it has always existed in addition to, and in competition and conflict with, another kind of knowledge, which I will call narrative in the interests of simplicity (its characteristics will be described later).
-
But this doubt on the part of scientists must be taken into account as a major factor in evaluating the present and future status of scientific knowledge.
-
Legitimation is the process by which a legislator is authorised to promulgate such a law as a norm. Now take the example of a scientific statement: it is subject to the rule that a statement must fulfil a given set of conditions in order to be accepted as scientific
-
The question of the legitimacy of science has been indissociably linked to that of the legitimation of the legislator since the time of Plato.
-
From this point of view, the right to decide what is true is not independent of the right to decide what is just, even if the statements consigned to these two authorities differ in nature.
-
For it appears in its most complete form, that of reversion, revealing that knowledge and power are simply two sides of the same question: who decides what knowledge is, and who knows what needs to be decided? In the computer age, the question of knowledge is now more than ever a question of government.
-
This last observation brings us to the first principle underlying our method as a whole: to speak is to fight, in the sense of playing, and speech acts fall within the domain of a general agonistics. This does not necessarily mean that one plays in order to win.
-
parole
-
This idea of an agonistics of language should not make us lose sight of the second principle, which stands as a complement to it and governs our analysis: that the observable social bond is composed of language “moves.”
-
If we wish to discuss knowledge in the most highly developed contemporary society, we must answer the preliminary question of what methodological representation to apply to that society
-
An illustration of the first model is suggested by Talcott Parsons (at least the postwar Parsons) and his school, and of the second, by the Marxist current (all of its component schools, whatever differences they may have, accept both the principle of class struggle and dialectics as a duality operating within society).”
-
The true goal of the system, the reason it programs itself like a computer, is the optimisation of the global relationship between input and output, in other words, performativity.
-
“The most essential condition of successful dynamic analysis is a continual and .systematic reference of every problem to the state of the system as a whole ... A process or set of conditions either ‘contributes’ to the maintenance (or development) of the system or it is ‘dysfunctional’ in that it detracts from the integration, effectiveness, etc., of the ‘system.” The “technocrats” also subscribe to this idea. Whence its credibility: it has the means to become a reality, and that is all the proof it needs. This is what Horkheimer called the “paranoia” of reason.
-
“Traditional” theory is always in danger of being incorporated into the programming of the social whole as a simple tool for the optimisation of its performance; this is because its desire for a unitary and totalising truth lends itself to the unitary and totalising practice of the system’s managers.
-
We will have to content ourselves with a glance at the balance sheet, which is possible for us to tally today now that their fate is known: in countries with liberal or advanced liberal management, the struggles and their instruments have been transformed into regulators of the system
-
The sole purpose of this schematic (or skeletal) reminder has been to specify the problematic in which I intend to frame the question of knowledge in advanced industrial societies.
-
For brevity’s sake, suffice it to say that functions of regulation, and therefore of reproduction, are being and will be further withdrawn from administrators and entrusted to machines.
-
Increasingly, the central question is becoming who will have access to the information these machines must have in storage to guarantee that the right decisions are made. Access to data is, and will continue to be, the prerogative of experts of all stripes.
-
Even now it is no longer composed of the traditional political class, but of a composite layer of corporate leaders, high-level administrators, and the heads of the major professional, labor, political, and religious organisations.
-
al. It depends on each individual’s industriousness. Each individual is referred to himself. And each of us knows that our self does not amount to much.
-
Nothing of the kind is happening: this point of view, it seems to me, is haunted by the paradisaic representation of a lost organic” society.
-
person is always located at “nodal points” of specific communication circuits, however tiny these may be. Or better: one is always located at a post through which various kinds of messages pass. No one, not even the least privileged among us, is ever entirely powerless over the messages that traverse and position him at the post of sender, addressee, or referent. One’s mobility in relation to these language game effects (language games, of course, are what this is all about) is tolerable, at least within certain limits (and the limits are vague); it is even solicited by regulatory mechanisms, and in particular by the self-adjustments the system undertakes in order to improve its performance.
-
It should now be clear from which perspective I chose language games as my general methodological approach. I am not claiming that the entirety of social relations is of this nature – that will remain an open question.
-
Or more simply still, the question of the social bond, insofar as it is a question, is itself a language game, the game of inquiry. It immediately positions the person who asks, as well as the addressee and the referent asked about: it is already the social bond.
-
It would be superficial to reduce its significance to the traditional alternative between manipulatory speech and the unilateral transmission of messages on the one hand, and free expression and dialogue on the other.
-
It is clear that what is important is not simply the fact that they communicate information. Reducing them to this function is to adopt an outlook which unduly privileges the system’s own interests and point of view. A cybernetic machine does indeed run on information, but the goals programmed into it, for example, originate in prescriptive and evaluative statements it has no way to correct in the course of its functioning – for example, maximising its own performance, how can one guarantee that performance maximisation is the best goal for the social system in every case.
-
The atoms are placed at the crossroads of pragmatic relationships, but they are also displaced by the messages that traverse them, in perpetual motion. Each language partner, when a “move” pertaining to him is made, undergoes a “displacement,” an alteration of some kind that not only affects him in his capacity as addressee and referent, but also as sender. These moves necessarily provoke “countermoves” and everyone knows that a countermove that is merely reactional is not a “good” move. Reactional countermoves arc no more than programmed effects in the opponent’s strategy; they play into his hands and thus have no effect on the balance of power. That is why it is important to increase displacement in the games, and even to disorient it, in such a way as to make an unexpected “move” (a new statement).
-
What is needed if we are to understand social relations in this manner, on whatever scale we choose, is not only a theory of communication, but a theory of games which accepts agonistics as a founding principle.
-
he objection will be made, at least, that the weight of certain institutions imposes limits on the games, and thus restricts the inventiveness of the players in making their moves. But I think this can be taken into account without causing any particular difficulty.
-
From this point of view, an institution differs from a conversation in that it always
-
We know today that the limits the institution imposes on potential language “moves” are never established once and for all (even if they have been formally defined), Rather, the limits are themselves the stakes and provisional results of language strategies, within the institution and without.
-
Reciprocally, it can be said that the boundaries only stabilise when they cease to be stakes in the game.
-
This, I think, is the appropriate approach to contemporary institutions of knowledge.
-
-
15 Jan 12
-
for the last forty years the “leading” sciences and technologies have had to do with language
-
Scientific knowledge is a kind of discourse.
-
research and the transmission of acquired learning
-
knowledge that is not translatable in this way will be abandoned
-
the direction of new research will be dictated by the possibility of its eventual results being translatable into computer language.
-
Knowledge in the form of an informational commodity indispensable to productive power is already, and will continue to be, a major – perhaps the major – stake in the worldwide competition for power
-
For the merchantilisation of knowledge is bound to affect the privilege the nation-states have enjoyed, and still enjoy, with respect to the production and distribution of learning.
-
communicational “transparency,
-
commercialisation of knowledge
-
multi-national corporations
-
nstead of for its “educational” value or political (administrative, diplomatic, military) importance;
-
between “payment knowledge” and “investment knowledge
-
between units of knowledge exchanged in a daily maintenance framework (the reconstitution of the work force, “survival”) versus funds of knowledge dedicated to optimising the performance of a project.
-
communicational transparency would be similar to liberalism
-
a fine capacity for discrimination.
-
it fails to challenge the general paradigm of progress in s
-
cience and technology
-
economic growth and the expansion of sociopolitical power seem to be natural complements.
-
cientific and technical knowledge is cumulative is never questioned.
-
scientific knowledge does not represent the totality of knowledge;
-
narrative in the interests of simplicity
-
The resulting demoralisation of researchers and teachers is far from negligible;
-
the scientists’ demoralisation has an impact on the central problem of legitimation.
-
Legitimation is the process by which a legislator is authorised to promulgate such a law as a norm.
-
The question of the legitimacy of science has been indissociably linked to that of the legitimation of the legislator since the time of Plato.
-
there is a strict interlinkage between the kind of language called science and the kind called ethics and politics: they both stem from the same perspective, the same “choice” if you will – the choice called the Occident.
-
emphasising facts of language and in particular their pragmatic aspect.
-
its effect upon the referent coincides with its enunciation
-
this is so is not subject to discussion or verification on the part of the addressee
-
the various types of utterances he identifies along the way
-
language games
-
each of the various categories of utterance can be defined in terms of rules specifying their properties and the uses to which they can be put
-
their rules do not carry within themselves their own legitimation, but are the object of a contract, explicit or not, between players
-
if there are no rules, there is no game, that even an infinitesimal modification of one rule alters the nature of the game, that a “move” or utterance that does not satisfy the rules does not belong to the game they define.
-
every utterance should be thought of as a “move” in a game.
-
to speak is to fight, in the sense of playing, and speech acts fall within the domain of a general agonistics.
-
hat the observable social bond is composed of language “moves.”
-
two basic representational models for society: either society forms a functional whole, or it is divided in two.
-
-
07 Nov 11
-
02 Nov 11
-
19 Sep 11
-
29 May 11
-
22 May 11
-
the status of knowledge is altered as societies enter what is known as the postindustrial age and cultures enter what is known as the postmodern age.
-
Scientific knowledge is a kind of discourse.
-
the direction of new research will be dictated by the possibility of its eventual results being translatable into computer language
-
cybernetics
-
genetics
-
the proliferation of information-processing machines is having, and will continue to have, as much of an effect on the circulation of learning as did advancements in human circulation (transportation systems) and later, in the circulation of sounds and visual images (the media)
-
The nature of knowledge cannot survive unchanged within this context of general transformation
-
It can fit into the new channels, and become operational, only if learning is translated into quantities of information.
-
anything in the constituted body of knowledge that is not translatable in this way will be abandoned
-
Along with the hegemony of computers comes a certain logic, and therefore a certain set of prescriptions determining which statements are accepted as “knowledge” statements.
-
However, the perspective I have outlined above is not as simple as I have made it appear. For the merchantilisation of knowledge is bound to affect the privilege the nation-states have enjoyed, and still enjoy, with respect to the production and distribution of learning. The notion that learning falls within the purview of the State, as the brain or mind of society, will become more and more outdated with the increasing strength of the opposing principle, according to which society exists and progresses only if the messages circulating within it are rich in information and easy to decode. The ideology of communicational “transparency,” which goes hand in hand with the commercialisation of knowledge, will begin to perceive the State as a factor of opacity and “noise.” It is from this point of view that the problem of the relationship between economic and State powers threatens to arise with a new urgency.
-
A self does not amount to much, but no self is an island; each exists in a fabric of relations that is now more complex and mobile than ever before. Young or old, man or woman, rich or poor, a person is always located at “nodal points” of specific communication circuits, however tiny these may be. Or better: one is always located at a post through which various kinds of messages pass. No one, not even the least privileged among us, is ever entirely powerless over the messages that traverse and position him at the post of sender, addressee, or referent.
-
the old poles of attraction represented by nation-states, parties, professions, institutions, and historical traditions are losing their attraction
-
-
27 Dec 10
Sorelle Henricus"he “producers” and users of knowledge must now, and will have to, possess the means of translating into these languages whatever they want to invent or learn. Rese"
-
19 Nov 10
-
Scientific knowledge is a kind of discourse. And it is fair to say that for the last forty years the “leading” sciences and technologies have had to do with language
-
The nature of knowledge cannot survive unchanged within this context of general transformation.
-
Knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold, it is and will be consumed in order to be valorised in a new production: in both cases, the goal is exchange.
-
A self does not amount to much, but no self is an island; each exists in a fabric of relations that is now more complex and mobile than ever before.
-
-
19 Aug 10
-
a person is always located at “nodal points” of specific communication circuits
-
The Postmodern Condition (1979) publ. Manchester University Press, 1984. The First 5 Chapters of main body of work are reproduced here.
-
each exists in a fabric of relations that is now more complex and mobile than ever before.
-
a person is always located at “nodal points” of specific communication circuits
-
it is clear that language assumes a new importance
-
t would be superficial to reduce its significance to the traditional alternative between manipulatory speech and the unilateral transmission of messages on the one hand, and free expression and dialogue on the other
-
-
02 Aug 09
-
Add Sticky NoteOne can decide that the principal role of knowledge is as an indispensable element in the functioning of society, and act in accordance with that decision, only if one has already decided that society is a giant machine.
-
-
The ruling class is and will continue to be the class of decision makers
-
Each individual is referred to himself. And each of us knows that our self does not amount to much
-
This breaking up of the grand Narratives
-
the dissolution of the social bond and the disintegration of social aggregates into a mass of individual atoms thrown into the absurdity of Brownian motion. Nothing of the kind is happening: this point of view, it seems to me, is haunted by the paradisaic representation of a lost organic” society.
-
leads to
-
no self is an island; each exists in a fabric of relations that is now more complex and mobile than ever before.
-
This “atomisation” of the social into flexible networks of language games may seem far removed from the modern reality, which is depicted, on the contrary, as afflicted with bureaucratic paralysis.
-
the rules allow and encourage the greatest possible flexibility of utterance.
-
an institution
-
Add Sticky Noterequires supplementary constraints for statements to be declared admissible within its bounds. The constraints function to filter discursive potentials, interrupting possible connections in the communication networks: there are things that should not be said. They also privilege certain classes of statements (sometimes only one) whose predominance characterises the discourse of the particular institution: there arc things that should be said, and there are ways of saving them. Thus: orders in the army, prayer in church, denotation in the schools, narration in families, questions in philosophy, performativity in businesses. Bureaucratisation is the outer limit of this tendency.
-
it is important cause it prevents from excess of sofisms and abuse of language ressources for manipulation and mistification
-
-
are never established once and for all
-
the boundaries only stabilise when they cease to be stakes in the game
-
-
30 Apr 09
-
13 Apr 09
-
ions) inspire hope and lead to belief in an alternative, even then what is actually taking place is only an internal readjustment, and its result can be no more than an increase in the system’s “viability.” The only alternative to this kind of performance improvement is entropy, or decline.
Here again, while avoiding the simplifications inherent in a sociology of social theory, it is difficult to deny at least a parallel between this “hard” technocratic version of society and the ascetic effort that was demanded (the fact that it was done in name of “advanced liberalism” is beside the point) of the most highly developed industrial societies in order to make them competitive – and thus optimise their “irrationality” – within the framework of the resumption of economic wo
-
A self does not amount to much, but no self is an island; each exists in a fabric of relations that is now more complex and mobile than ever before. Young or old, man or woman, rich or poor, a person is always located at “nodal points” of specific communication circuits, however tiny these may be. Or better: one is always located at a post through which various kinds of messages pass. No one, not even the least privileged among us, is ever entirely powerless over the messages that traverse and position him at the post of sender, addressee, or referent. One’s mobility in relation to these language game effects (language games, of course, are what this is all about) is tolerable, at least within certain limits (and the limits are vague); it is even solicited by regulatory mechanisms, and in particular by the self-adjustments the system undertakes in order to improve its performance. It may even be said that the system can and must encourage such movement to the extent that it combats its own entropy, the novelty of an unexpected “move,” with its correlative displacement of a partner or group of partners, can supply the system with that increased performativity it forever demands and consumes
-
a person is always located at “nodal points” of specific communication circuits, however tiny these may be. Or better: one is always located at a post through which various kinds of messages pass. No one, not even the least privileged among us, is ever entirely powerless over the messages that traverse and position him at the post of sender, addressee, or referent. One’s mobility in relation to these language game effects (language games, of course, are what this is all about) is tolerable, at least within certain limits (and the limits are vague); it is even solicited by regulatory mechanisms, and in particular by the self-adjustments the system undertakes in order to improve its performance. It may even be said that the system can and must encourage such movement to the extent that it combats its own entropy, the novelty of an unexpected “move,” with its correlative displacement of a partner or group of partners
-
ch or poor, a person is always located at “nodal points” of specific communication circuits, however tiny these may be. Or better: one is always located at a post through which various kinds of messages pass. No one, not even the least privileged among us, is ever entirely powerless over the messages that traverse and position him at the post of sender, addressee, or referent. One’s mobility in relation to these language game effects (language games, of course, are what this is all about) is tolerable, at least within certain limits (and the limits are vague); it is even solicited by regulatory mechanisms, and in particular by the self-adjustments the system undertakes in order to improve its performance. It may even be said that the system can and must encourage such movement to the extent that it combats its own entropy, the novelty of an unexpected “move,” with its correlative displacement of a partner or group of partn
-
revolutions) inspire hope and lead to belief in an alternative, even then what is actually taking place is only an internal readjustment, and its result can be no more than an increase in the system’s “viability.” The only alternative to this kind of performance improvement is entropy, or decline.
Here again, while avoiding the simplifications inherent in a sociology of social theory, it is difficult to deny at least a parallel between this “hard” technocratic version of society and the ascetic effort that was demanded (the fact that it was done in name of “advanced liberalism” is beside the point) of the most highly developed industrial societies in order to make them competitive – and thus optimise their “irrationality” – within the framework of the resumption of economic w
-
-
15 Dec 08
-
Add Sticky Note
What he means by this term is that each of the various categories of utterance can be defined in terms of rules specifying their properties and the uses to which they can be put – in exactly the same way as the game of chess is defined by a set of rules determining the properties of each of the pieces, in other words, the proper way to move them.
It is useful to make the following three observations about language games. The first is that their rules do not carry within themselves their own legitimation, but are the object of a contract, explicit or not, between players (which is not to say that the players invent the rules). The second is that if there are no rules, there is no game, that even an infinitesimal modification of one rule alters the nature of the game, that a “move” or utterance that does not satisfy the rules does not belong to the game they define. The third remark is suggested by what has just been said: every utterance should be thought of as a “move” in a game.
-
cf. Ignacio Padilla's Shadow Without a Name
-
Michael,
what you mean by this highlight is what Lyotard thinks of Wittgenstein`s thought or about the thought itself, the language games?
sorry, I didn`t get it pretty well
-
-
-
14 Nov 08
-
17 Sep 08
-
29 Jul 08
-
05 Jun 08
-
02 May 08
-
09 Feb 08
-
29 Dec 07
-
> > as did advancements in human circulation (transportation systems) and later, in the circulation of sounds and visual images (the media).
-
status of knowledge is altered
-
societies
-
postindustrial age
-
cultures
-
hypothesis
-
postmodern age
-
1950s,
-
completion of reconstruction
-
point of departure
-
Scientific knowledge
-
last forty years the “leading” sciences and technologies have had to do with language
-
technological transformations
-
considerable impact on knowledge
-
two principal functions
-
research and the transmission of acquired learning
-
proliferation of information-processing machines
-
an effect on the circulation of learning
-
ning > as
-
as did advancements in human circulation (transportation systems) and later, in the circulation of sounds and visual images (the media).
-
new research will be dictated by the possibility of its eventual results being translatable into computer language
-
hegemony of computers
-
certain logic
-
prescriptions
-
thorough exteriorisation of knowledge with respect to the “knower,”
-
Knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold, it is and will be consumed in order to be valorised in a new production: in both cases, the goal is exchange
-
knowledge has become the principle force of production over the last few decades
-
major bottleneck for the developing countries
-
gap between developed and developing countries will grow ever wider
-
nation-states will one day fight for control of information
-
ideology of communicational “transparency,” which goes hand in hand with the commercialisation of knowledge, will begin to perceive the State as a factor of opacity and “noise.”
-
multi-national corporations
-
visualise learning circulating along the same lines as money
-
“payment knowledge” and “investment knowledge”
-
flows of knowledge travelling along identical channels of identical nature, some of which would be reserved for the “decision makers,” while the others would be used to repay each person’s perpetual debt with respect to the social bond
-
fails to challenge the general paradigm of progress in science and technology, to which economic growth and the expansion of sociopolitical power seem to be natural complements
-
scientific knowledge does not represent the totality of knowledge
-
In the first place,
-
narrative knowledge
-
second point – the scientists’ demoralisation has an impact on the central problem of legitimation
-
Legitimation is the process by which a legislator is authorised to promulgate such a law as a norm
-
The point is that there is a strict interlinkage between the kind of language called science and the kind called ethics and politics: they both stem from the same perspective, the same “choice” if you will – the choice called the Occident
-
who decides what knowledge is, and who knows what needs to be decided? In the computer age, the question of knowledge is now more than ever a question of government
-
emphasising facts of language and in particular their pragmatic aspect
-
prescriptions
-
Wittgenstein,
-
each of the various categories of utterance can be defined in terms of rules specifying their properties and the uses to which they can be put
-
language games
-
three observations about language games
-
their rules do not carry within themselves their own legitimation, but are the object of a contract, explicit or not, between players
-
that if there are no rules, there is no game, that even an infinitesimal modification of one rule alters the nature of the game, that a “move” or utterance that does not satisfy the rules does not belong to the game
-
every utterance should be thought of as a “move” in a game
-
first principle underlying our method as a whole: to speak is to fight, in the sense of playing, and speech acts fall within the domain of a general agonistics
-
the second principle
-
the observable social bond is composed of language “moves.”
-
If we wish to discuss knowledge in the most highly developed contemporary society, we must answer the preliminary question of what methodological representation to apply to that society
-
two basic representational models for society
-
Talcott Parsons
-
Marxist current
-
mpossible to know what the state of knowledge is
-
without knowing something of the society within which it is situated
-
One can decide that the principal role of knowledge is as an indispensable element in the functioning of society, and act in accordance with that decision, only if one has already decided that society is a giant machine
-
Conversely, one can count on its critical function, and orient its development and distribution in that direction, only after it has been decided that society does not form an integrated whole, but remains haunted by a principle of oppositions
-
It is tempting to avoid the decision altogether by distinguishing two kinds of knowledge
-
positivist kind
-
critical, reflexive, or hermeneutic kind
-
I find this partition solution unacceptable
-
no longer relevant for the societies with which we are concerned
-
Increasingly, the central question is becoming who will have access to the information these machines must have in storage to guarantee that the right decisions are made
-
A self does not amount to much, but no self is an island; each exists in a fabric of relations that is now more complex and mobile than ever before
-
one is always located at a post through which various kinds of messages pass
-
the system can and must encourage such movement to the extent that it combats its own entropy, the novelty of an unexpected “move,” with its correlative displacement of a partner or group of partners, can supply the system with that increased performativity it forever demands and consumes
-
language games are the minimum relation required for society to exist
-
The atoms are placed at the crossroads of pragmatic relationships, but they are also displaced by the messages that traverse them, in perpetual motion
-
-
27 Dec 07
-
19 Jun 07
-
The nature of knowledge cannot survive unchanged within this context of general transformation.
-
Along with the hegemony of computers comes a certain logic, and therefore a certain set of prescriptions determining which statements are accepted as “knowledge” statements.
-
thorough exteriorisation of knowledge with respect to the “knower,”
-
he form of value
-
Knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold
-
will one day fight for control of information
-
New legal issues will be raised, and with them the question: “who will know?”
-
especially if it is to undergo an exteriorisation with respect to the “knower” and an alienation from its user even greater than has previously been the case
-
revealing that knowledge and power are simply two sides of the same question: who decides what knowledge is, and who knows what needs to be decided? In the computer age, the question of knowledge is now more than ever a question of government.
-
Wittgenstein, taking up the study of language again from scratch, focuses his attention on the effects of different modes of discourse; he calls the various types of utterances he identifies along the way (a few of which I have listed) language games.
-
the observable social bond is composed of language “moves.”
-
One can decide that the principal role of knowledge is as an indispensable element in the functioning of society, and act in accordance with that decision, only if one has already decided that society is a giant machine.
-
For brevity’s sake, suffice it to say that functions of regulation, and therefore of reproduction, are being and will be further withdrawn from administrators and entrusted to machines. Increasingly, the central question is becoming who will have access to the information these machines must have in storage to guarantee that the right decisions are made. Access to data is, and will continue to be, the prerogative of experts of all stripes. The ruling class is and will continue to be the class of decision makers. Even now it is no longer composed of the traditional political class, but of a composite layer of corporate leaders, high-level administrators, and the heads of the major professional, labor, political, and religious organisations.
-
This breaking up of the grand Narratives (discussed below, sections 9 and 10) leads to what some authors analyse in terms of the dissolution of the social bond and the disintegration of social aggregates into a mass of individual atoms thrown into the absurdity of Brownian motion.
-
It would be superficial to reduce its significance to the traditional alternative between manipulatory speech and the unilateral transmission of messages on the one hand, and free expression and dialogue on the other.
-
What is needed if we are to understand social relations in this manner, on whatever scale we choose, is not only a theory of communication, but a theory of games which accepts agonistics as a founding principle.
-
Rather, the limits are themselves the stakes and provisional results of language strategies, within the institution and without.
-
This, I think, is the appropriate approach to contemporary institutions of knowledge.
-
-
23 Oct 06
-
09 Oct 06
-
11 Nov 05
-
09 Apr 05
-
23 Sep 04
Public Stiky Notes
what you mean by this highlight is what Lyotard thinks of Wittgenstein`s thought or about the thought itself, the language games?
sorry, I didn`t get it pretty well
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.