J.Rice

admin September 11th, 2009

Xix ‘narrative means something like teleology”

Xxiii – this is a book about knowledge
Science always in conflict w/narrative
Xxv the university may be at its end/the Institution just beginning
3 over the last forty years leading sciences and technologies have to do w/language
4 research and transmission of acquired learning affected
direction of new research will be directed by computer
5 knowledge as information commodity will be the major stake in competition for world power
6 what happens when corporations (not nation state) control information through technology?
7 computerization – allows us to spotlight transformation of knowledge for STRATEGIC/not PREDICTIVE reasons
scientific knowledge always exists WITH narrative (conflicting relationship)
9 in computer age, question of knowledge is one of government
THE PRAGMATIC
Basic semiotics
10 in language – pragmatics of prescription entail changes in the posts of addressee and referent
in a language game – every utterance is a move
to speak is to fight/ speech acts are general agonistics
11 but true goal of a system – like programming in a computer – is performativity
dysfunction – see Facebook recently with memes
12-13 we see this as “theories” are used to “program” the system I.e. critical model reduced to hope or utopia raised for some “name.” A grand narrative takes the place of a practice
13 if we decide knowledge is indispensable part of society, we have decided society is a machine (i.e. knowledge programs the machine)
14 positivist knowledge – directly applicable to technologies (productive force in system)
critical, reflexive or hermeneutic knowledge – reflects some kind of value or aim but resists recuperation
BUT!
That opposition does not work either.
Access to data will the prerogative of experts (Amazon, govt, school, etc)
Though how does this take into account Web 2.0?
15 each self exists in complex set of relations / located at NODAL points
one is always located at point where messages pass (like a network)
social bond is a language game (thinking about this narrative Lyotard speaks of as a network – bound by changing rules in which all texts/selves are nodes)
16 cybernetic version of information leaves out agonistic aspect of society (cybernetics – systems and control of them) / we need not just theories of communication, but of games which include agonistics as principle
17 boundaries in language games (in systems) stabilize when they cease to be stakes in the game
18 knowledge cannot be reduced to science nor to learning
knowledge is know how, how to live, how listen – question of competence beyond simple determination and application of truth
19 It is competence building measures (always growing/changing)
and is socially constructed (criteria)
as agreed upon customary form, narrative is used
20 it sets terms of speaker, listener, referent
22 w/narrative, we depend less on remembering past – and more on recitation. References may seem to belong to the past, but they are just recitations
23 narratives determine what has the right to be said and done in a culture/but they are a part of the culture, so that in itself legitimizes them

research game/teaching game
24 referent – can be used as proof and as evidence
thus verification or falsification – science and thus research
plays into teaching: Didactics. Student (address) does not know what sender (teacher) knows.
Research depends on an addressee- who will then take the research and become a sender with it – recitation of the narrative
25 but student can learn and also become expert
research is the collective of statements that exchange
when sender allows address to participate in knowing, we get research again
competence required only of sender
science believes in the denotative
26 new statements occur when they don’t appear in series of referents (bibliography)
But criteria for narrative is different.
27 narrative, unlike science, does not spend time trying to prove its value (as in the sender to address relationship).
28 – here we see typical rhetorical grand narratives – we argue toward consensus, a referent can be agreed on, we are rational (parity)
29 Plato’s allegory of the cave – knowledge founded on the narrative of its own martyrdom.
Dialogues – narrative of scientific discussion
Scientific knowledge depends on narrative
30 narrative is West’s traditional problem solver
31 narrative legitimates in two ways: represents subject of narrative as hero of knowledge or of liberty. But it is incapable of describing that meaning adequately.
Types of legitimations:
1. The right to science – the people
32 tied to State through notions of freedom/progress
2. liberal option / moral training of Nation
33 Ideals
language game is philosophical (in system) not in State
- SPECULATION
34 totatlizing – a HISTORY
principle not of usefulness, not of LIFE
35 as such, knowledge names itself
true knowledge is indirect knowledge – UNIVERSITY is the exclusive institution
36-7 two problematic examples: Marxism of first type/Heidegger of second type
37 in postmodern, grand narrative loses credibility, regardless of which type it is – speculative (university) or emancipatory (ideology)
39 there is an erosion of legitimacy principle of knowledge – we see this in university (speculative game)
development of areas of inquiry (networks) takes speculative function away from university. Researchers are limited to transmission of established knowledge, rather than production of new researchers.
41 Research – two important changes:
a. multiple methods of argumentation
b. complexity level in establishing proof (an indirect response to more simplistic argumentative stylings, as in thesis driven writing)
43 what about the invention of new rules, changes to a new game?
this accompanies shift in what we mean by “reason”

44 wealth driving technology more than desire for knowledge
performativity is the technology connection to knowledge
challenging role of PROOF
technology is about moves, not value (a true or false move)
46 science today does not work towards truth, but power
47 the issue of mastering reality, and using technology to do so
and we see this through performativity – and knowing AS MUCH as we can about a referent – thus the importance of data bases (they store the knowledge – think of Amazon and its performance in terms of Lyotard’s issue with power in this context).
48 how, then, does higher education adhere to this kind of thinking? The “performativity criterion.”
Two ways: how skills will tackle world competition/how skills fulfill society’s needs – maintaining cohesion
Skills instead of ideals
49 one movement: from en block learning, to a la carte
50 what is transmitted in higher learning?
Organized stock of established knowledge (what is impact of new technologies, then? Lyotard guesses, but no answer. Think of del.icio.us or weblogs as starters…)
Students would have to learn to use the terminals (contrast w/McLuhan’s vision)
51 the question now isn’t “is it true” but “what use is it?”
Data banks are the encyclopedia of tomorrow (WIKIPEDIA) – they are nature
Advantage will be: who has knowledge and can obtain information?
51-2 ARRANGEMENT will be a skill (a new move) rather than mastery (perfect knowledge)
52 connecting data previously held to be independent
spurred by IMAGINATION
there is no scientific secret
Education should teach how to connect the fields
53 network is the demise of the professor
54 supporting an argument means looking for a paradox
55 perfect control of the system (positivism) does not lead to improved performance, but the opposite (feedback is shut out)
56 as accuracy increases, so does uncertainty
thus, how can there be exact knowledge?
57 the question is not to learn what something is but what the game being played is (not the taxonomy but the context)
thus: natural science prefers the exact (the referent which is predictable)
human sciences (like liberal arts) engage in strategies which are not predictable (lack of referent) – this Lyotard calls “agonistic”
60 postmodern science – paradoxes, discontinuous results, etc. – it CHANGES the meaning of knowledge and expresses how the change takes place. Produces the unknown (as opposed to known)
This is paralogy

The little narrative is the form of imaginative invention
61 paralogy distinguished from invention – it is a move played in pragmatics of knowledge
dissension (not consensus) must now be emphasized
in an information culture – consensus would depend on every decision/idea played out. Too slow. Speed is important, then.
62 administrative procedures make individuals want what the system needs
63 in efficient run systems, system thinks IT knows what society needs
and then “moves” are rejected that don’t enforce homeostasis – for Lyotard these are terrorist moves – because other players in the game are eliminated
64 it is a move designed to limit participation
science as open system does not enforce terror (for us, opposite of science – and a totalizing system of efficiency – might be LITERACY)
65 problem with reducing all this to argumentation is that:
1. we’d have to agree to the rules 2. We have to agree that goal is consensus
66 the end of the game is not consensus (consensus is in game) but paralogy
(and more for us: consensus on digitality? Technology? Technology in education? How quick do we settle for consensus and not paralogy?)
*Consensus is an outmoded and suspect value
67 NOW we can understand how the computerization of society affects the problematic – if it CONTROLS via efficiency etc, terror (hint of Burroughs)
OR it could help w/making knowledgeable decisions – and that happens through free usage of memory banks (Remember: this is pre-Web)

• Comments(0)