The Postmodern Condition: A Report on

Knowledge Study Guide

The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge
by Jean-François Lyotard
(c)2015 BookRags, Inc. All rights reserved.
Contents
The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge Study Guide............................................... 1

Contents...................................................................................................................................... 2

Plot Summary.............................................................................................................................. 3

The Field: Knowledge in Computerized Science.......................................................................... 4

The Problem: Legitimation........................................................................................................... 6

The Method: Language Games................................................................................................... 7

The Nature of the Social Bond: The Modern Alternative.............................................................. 9

The Nature of the Social Bond: The Postmodern Perspective.................................................... 11

The Pragmatics of Narrative Knowledge.................................................................................... 13

The Pragmatics of Scientific Knowledge.................................................................................... 15

The Narrative Function and the Legitimation of Knowledge....................................................... 17

Narratives of the Legitimation of Knowledge.............................................................................. 19

Delegitimation............................................................................................................................ 21

Research and Its Legitimation Through Performativity............................................................... 23

Education and its Legitimation Through Performativity.............................................................. 25

Postmodern Science as the Search for Instabilities................................................................... 27

Legitimation by Paralogy............................................................................................................ 29

Appendix: What is Postmodernism?.......................................................................................... 31

Characters................................................................................................................................. 33

Objects/Places........................................................................................................................... 36

Themes...................................................................................................................................... 39

Style........................................................................................................................................... 41

Quotes....................................................................................................................................... 43

Topics for Discussion................................................................................................................. 45

2
Plot Summary
Nowadays there is the growth of computerized systems. As with all transformations in
science, the computer age has resulted in a transformation of social relations in
society . Unfortunately, science is yet to come to terms with the fact that the discipline of
science, or rather, scientific method, is no longer serving society as a legitimate
function. When the stories one tells themselves about the world are not legitimate, then
society suffers. Only by recognizing that history will never reach its culmination but will
continue on, forever changing, can one recognize that the stories one tells oneself are
flawed. The age old stories of the hero as the emancipator have been largely relegated
in history. Science is a-historical because the narrative it tells is not justified if the
knowledge it attempts to present is objectified and loses its humanity. Historical
narrative, on the other hand, relies on the internalization of the story and has been
presented by the storyteller whose authority is not questioned because of their place in
society and because of the nature of communication as the storyteller.

The language games of science attempt to incorporate the philosophical theories of

history. By doing so, it believes it can maintain legitimation. However, this is impossible,
because science is not consistent and is in a state of uneven change; when new
theories arrive, one is thrown into a state of confusion of a new paradigm. Science itself
sets the rules. Truth is made not by addressing knowledge but by finding
counterexamples to knowledge. This makes science paradoxical.

Not only is it the method of science that seems contradictory, but the latest findings in
quantum mechanics finds that objectification is difficult to find. Theories of quantum
mechanics demonstrate the world is not always discrete, consistent, and rational.

Science needs to face up to its system of language games, which are not ethically
justified. Supposed legitimation in the language games of science are reduced to
adversarial relations, like playing a game, where those that have access to capital are
able to perpetuate their social standing while those who cannot are left by the wayside.
**This problem results in science being repressive in what Lyotard says can be
terroristic by threatening others whom attempt to play the game and are not invited, or
those playing the game but refuse to play by the rules. These individual are pushed out
of the scientific language game by force by cutting off funding for research for example,
regardless of the legitimacy of their scientific research.**

Because of research's divorce from the philosophical underpinnings of the university,

research becomes a tool simply for technocrats, bureaucrats, and political leaders. If
science does not acquiesce to the demands of the age, then society will suffer and
creativity will disappear. **By forcing scientific realism on the world, this results in the
degrading of society, with further alienation from the language game of the hero, the
emancipator, and the bringer of freedom. This leaves instead a form of delegitimacy
emphasizing the continual speeding up in productivity.**

3
The Field: Knowledge in Computerized
Science
The Field: Knowledge in Computerized Science
Summary and Analysis
Lyotard coined the term postmodernism. This term draws a relationship between
modernism and postmodernism. The Postmodern age is born out of modernism. In this
book, Lyotard is concerned with language games predominately, which determine social
relations. The question is, what is effective knowledge in society? Lyotard claims that
the universities, and science in general, are suffering because of delegitimation. He
claims that the stories one tells oneself and each other are in conflict with what exactly
exists in reality. What has resulted is a science that is based on dominance and
repression rather than being focused on truth. Postmodernism's task is to restore
harmony in the system by embracing the anarchy that exists in the new scientific
paradigm.

Lyotard refers to the technological age as the age of computers. He refers to changes in
the past forty years regarding language, communication, mathematics, and computers,
including information storage. He talks about the replacing of the narratives of primarily
French and German thought. He classifies the French thought as being Post-Marxist,
while stating that German thought emphasizes an evolution of thought often epitomized
by Hegel. These systems are not always consistent with science. For example, Kuhn
talks about paradigms where science undergoes transitions: for example, between
Newtonian physics and Einsteinean physics. This paradigm shift results in a completely
new way of looking at the world.

Ultimately, when one talks about postmodernism, the term which Lyotard coined, one is
talking about a break between the industrial age and the information age. Not only has
the distinction between modernism and postmodernism involved technology and its
ideologies, but also has raised concerns in the fields of language, aesthetics, language,
politics, as well as technology.

Lyotard is concerned that knowledge will become monopolized. He feels it is important

for people to have access to information in a just society. Technology has become the
province of the politicians and the technocrats. Already knowledge systems have
become international in nature. Lyotard makes a distinction between two principal
functions in science. He draws a distinction between research and the transmission of
learning.

It is apparent that knowledge is the new commodity in postmodern society. The question
is, will this knowledge be available to all, or will it be the privy of the technological and
political class. It is true that with the internationalization of knowledge, nation states will
become obsolete. They will dissolve into multinational corporations trying to protect their

4
informational commodities. Computer technologies lead to the internationalization of
information. One might ask what is the impact of this internationalization of information.

The two continental approaches to knowledge contain a sort of end, which all things are
headed. In the present French tradition, there are the neo-Marxists. Marx's theory of
historical materialism presents an approach of history unfolding, ultimately culminating
in revolution. Similarly, German tradition through Hegel, Marx's mentor, emphasizes a
sort of unfolding of spirit approaching an ideal. In addition, Lyotard also cites Frederick
Nietzsche. On the other hand, Nietzsche talks about history as something that needs to
be forgotten. In other words, history is to be ignored and change is considered a-
historical. This is the precursor to postmodernism.

Computerized science has heralded the new age of ideology. It is clear that computers
are here to stay. The stories of the philosophers in the unfolding of history have
collapsed because human knowledge will never reach a conclusion and these modern
beliefs have become untenable. No one knows what the next revolution in science will
take; perhaps it will be the artificial construction of life, which will have its own effect on
social systems.

Changes in social systems are inevitable. It is not widely recognized, but humanity's
social functioning is the result of the nature of the narratives one tells themselves. No
one could have seen the advent of computers in the modern age, at least the revolution
that they would cause in the world. In the computer age, the world becomes one's
office. The home can be monitored by the employers and the privacy of home life is
destroyed. With international communication, nation-states find themselves at risk. One
can see this today with the internationalization of business and the world networks that
are in place where one reaches India when one calls for computer support.

However, not only are international communications changing the way one lives, but
that which counts as reality is coveted by all as knowledge. This is the most valued
commodity of the postmodern age. With knowledge systems, robots can be
constructed, online courses can be tutorials in a computer program. Yet science finds
itself losing its grip on the world as scientists and bureaucrats and technologists decide
who has access to this information system and whether the dynamic of learning can be
perpetuated if this access is denied.

5
The Problem: Legitimation
The Problem: Legitimation Summary and Analysis
Lyotard identifies legitimation as the primary problem addressed by the postmodern
condition. In the postmodern age, there is the advent of computers. The question is
raised asking what will be the effect of computers on society in civil institutions in
general.

Science finds itself in conflict with other types of knowledge. Lyotard talks about the
narrative. Because of the changing narratives, Lyotard notes that there is a notable
degree of loss of productivity at institutions and universities. This new paradigm of
science and its narratives has contaminated these institutions. This demoralization has
had an impact on legitimation according to Lyotard.

The supposed legitimation of science is questionable when compared with the

narratives of history and stories, although science may claim to have the same
legitimation. Science has become a legislator with prescriptions stating how things
should be done. History and stories on the other hand talk about truth. Legitimation
cannot be forced and cannot be prescribed.

It might seem that legitimization is unimportant, that if society is well managed and
people are taken care of then why would legitimization be important? Others might think
that the claim of performativity as a value in science is an accurate description of
modern science and that social relations will continue to progress.

Nevertheless, there is a practical effect if science is not legitimized. If it is not legitimate,

then people in societies rights can be violated. If science becomes a form of ideology,
then the risk is that technocrats will use science for their own ends. This would include
an ideology justifying denying others access to knowledge, leaving them
disenfranchised in the modern age. Science then becomes an ideology of repression
and class privilege.

This is not the only worry. Since science is at most marginally interested in truth,
science cannot achieve innovations based on creative thinking. Already the speculation
of researchers in the university has been moved, surrendered to technocrats in the
private and government sector away from the university, denying the need for
philosophical speculation.

6
The Method: Language Games
The Method: Language Games Summary and Analysis
Lyotard talks about language games. As a model of communication, Lyotard talks about
the relationship between the sender, the addressee, and the thing talked about. When
making a claim as a knower, one refers to a denotative object. Another type of report
that occurs between the sender and recipient and addressee is a performativity
statement. These involve some moral prescription.

The statement made draws a distinction between what is traditionally is known as

historical knowledge and subsequently is classified as science. When someone
addresses the addressee, it is an enunciation, which is not open to discussion, simply
as a former prescription. Included in prescriptions are orders, commands, instructions,
recommendations, requests, prayers, pleas.

So rather than depending on some sort of knowledge, science depends on language

games. These games are well defined, and when the rules are violated, everyone
knows in the particular language game. When participating in a science oriented
narrative, one engages in a sort of competition, for one who wins makes the most
efficient use of the language games not unlike a chess game.

The language game is not based on the knowledge of science, but rather the technique
that is used to explain the subject of science to oneself and others. Those that can
practice science are limited because of status, whether it is social class, wealth,
prestige, and so on. Through the game, ones position can be determined; one will be
the winner and one the loser, where one expresses joy when arriving at victory and
sadness or anger at defeat.

The practice of science is ultimately a discussion of stories or language games among

scientists battering about prescriptive statements, which determine what they believe, is
truth.

Language games are at the heart of what is Lyotard's project. While narratives have
existed since the dawn of humankind, they have undergone remarkable changes
through the ages, not excluding the modern age. The relationship one has with others
determines the language game. Whether the game is historical or scientific, there is
always the sender of the message, the receiver, and the thing discussed or pointed at.
Science has always pointed at the denotative as embodying truth. Galileo and others
pursued science passionately, and at great risk, to bring about the truth. Science was a
privilege and not always the prevailing paradigm in religious political systems.

Historical narratives can tell us about truth, especially virtue epitomized by a great
person who protects or liberates the nation from its enemies. The stories are told by

7
respected elders, who express their stories not only in the utterance, but also in non-
semantic communication as well.

Science, on the other hand, tells a story too. There is a sender and a recipient of
information, but the stories that modern science tells, while slipping into contradiction in
the postmodern age, are to work harder and faster, to increase profit. The virtue of hard
work is understood and laziness is not tolerated in this modern scientific culture. This
supposed legitimation relies on an adversarial relationship between scientists where the
winner gets the goods. Society only can emulate these conflictual values

8
The Nature of the Social Bond: The
Modern Alternative
The Nature of the Social Bond: The Modern Alternative
Summary and Analysis
To talk about knowledge, one must talk about the method. In Marxist theory, society is
like a living organism. All is an organic whole, where all the functions in it serves society
at large. Cybernetics is taking up the role of the organism and serves as the functional
whole, as opposed to the historical narratives of individual freedom and emancipation.
With reason, according to scientists, it was thought that science could displace Marx's
theory and regulate an organic society whose social knowledge are determined by
information contained in database systems. This relationship in society can destabilize
nation states as the computers globalize international relations

It is as if knowledge has become reality. The realism subscribed to by scientists

permeates society. Yet the computer naturally leads to a performative function. The
world is modeled after the computer, with its logical input and output devices. The
process contributes to the system if it is functional and detracts from it if it is
dysfunctional. Therefore, if it is functional, it literally becomes what is true in social
relations. This is what is referred to as realism in modern science. This cybernetic
system uses social structure and emphasizes the unity of all in a sort of realism in the
totalizing of experience, which falls under the purview of the system managers.

Cybernetics runs into conflict with Marx's theory of class struggle. Marx emphasizes the
aspect of historical materialism where the unfolding of history is deterministic, which
includes alienated society. In the supplanting of the historical narrative science, the
world is reduced to a giant machine. Emphasis in the modern age is on homogeneity.
Opposed is the duality of class struggle between oneself and the masters where one
sells themselves through the products of alienated labor. These two approaches are
what Lyotard first calls one the positivist position of science, and second the
hermeneutic. The first, science, emphasizes the idea of realism, and the second
emphasizes the narrative as a system of knowledge.

Science has attempted to continue the narrative of the storyteller. The positivity of
science has become the information age of the technocrat, bureaucrat, and scientist.

History ends in the modern age and science reaches its culmination, or so it is
supposed. The philosophies of Hegel and Marx end where the end of history has been
reached. Speculation dies and philosophy fades both in society and in the academic
institutions. The story of Karl Marx's revolutionary fervor is replaced by the ideology of
the constant transformations of science. The search for truth is lost and gives way to the
ideology of performativity. With the end of the narrative story comes the story of
ideology, which attempts to emulate the narrative itself in the story of the successful

9
technocrats and their wares. Subtly, the language story has changed from the traditional
storyteller to a story that scientists and technocrats tell themselves to justify their
privilege. The language game rules are all laid out.

Larger still, nature is not the natural world of the logical positivist, but has been
displaced to be the knowledge systems that ultimately influence, being the gatekeepers,
this wealth of knowledge, determining the future of this modern realism or reality.
Science has become objectivity, rather than internalized, as in the traditional
storytellers.

10
The Nature of the Social Bond: The
Postmodern Perspective
The Nature of the Social Bond: The Postmodern
Perspective Summary and Analysis
With the advent as cybernetics, workers being redeployed goes hand in hand with the
function of the internationalization of commerce. These functions are more and more
being given to the administrators, whose interest in society complies with the demands
of the computer. No longer is the emphasis on the narrative of the hero of history or
emancipation.

Yet underneath it, all there is is an absurdity evident in science itself, for example, in
quantum mechanics, where a photon might be a particle, when looked at some ways as
a wave if looked at from another vantage point. This and similar incongruities are
persistent in the postmodern age. Yet science persists in explaining reality in terms of
pragmatics and through this regulation is the attempt to further enhance performativity.

Language games may be criticized but they are essential in society and its structure to
society. All movement within the social system is regulated by these language games.
The scientific influence on social structure encourages increased performativity. It is
hoped that in doing so the system remains dynamic and escapes entropy.

While it may not seem clear that computers are involved in language games, in fact,
they are. While the computer does spread information, its function is contained in the
program and may originate in prescriptive statements, which determine the mode of
functioning.

Are all things possible with the language games? It seems so. For example, if one is
dedicated to a cause while residing in their military barracks, freedom to promote one's
cause does not exist. However, all one has to do is simply change the language games
and then anything can be permitted according to the language game played.

Narrative knowledge encompasses both the historical narrative as well as the scientific
narrative. The scientific narrative has largely displaced its mother, the historical
narrative. In doing so, it has attempted to justify itself by appealing to the historical
narrative. However, in reality, it views the historical narrative as malformed, sluggardly
and awkward. Science sets the rules and calls the shots. Science thinks it can have it
both ways, discard the historical narrative, and grab values by the horns. In trying to
deny that science itself in involved in delegitimacy, it sets itself up as the only authority
that can decide what the method "really means." However, the truth is lost in this
sermon, because science is quickly approaching the abyss, where its firm embrace of
the historical imperatives dissolves into a form of economic and political narcissism.

11
The value of language games in themselves are insignificant: it is what they signify that
is important. Anyone can set up a game according to arbitrary rules, and some rules will
be better than others, but whether the game is fair or just depends on the legitimacy of
the language system. In science, it relies on competition where there is a winner and a
loser. Nevertheless, the rules could just as easily be changed where the loser becomes
the winner. What does it matter if the rules are not legitimate, one might ask?

12
The Pragmatics of Narrative Knowledge
The Pragmatics of Narrative Knowledge Summary and
Analysis
There is a distinction between knowledge and science. Science constitutes a subset of
knowledge. As knowledge points at denotative entities, so does science. Yet knowledge
not only deals with denotative knowledge, but also with how a person should live their
lives and concerns about what needs to be done. In the modern age, these concerns
have fallen under the purview of science.

Knowledge addresses denotative questions but also deals with moral questions.
Knowledge addresses not only prescriptive utterances but also makes evaluative or
ethical judgments. Through knowledge, one is able to make judgments, whether they
are historical narratives or simply scientific ones.

For example, science is looked at in the pragmatic sense. Science claims something is
good to the extent that it is useful. Other relevant criteria exist for knowledge including
justice, beauty, and truth, all of which are particular to the historical narrative, which
science is not.

Culture depends on its ethnology. The different aspects of knowledge are different
narrative forms. The success or failure of knowledge in the cultural system helps
determine the legitimacy of the narrative. First, popular stories affect culture, and the
effect of these stories determine the legitimate forms of these stories. Second, the
narrative form looks at how one should act based on being an autonomous human
being. Third, private property compels one to adhere to the rules of society in order to
arrive at an efficient way of determining social relations. The fourth aspect of narrative
knowledge recognizes that knowledge is not determined simply by constraints inherent
in the language system. There are certain aspects of language that are non-morphemic.

These non-morphemic aspects include rhythm, lexical aspects, syntactical anomalies,

and monotone chants. Narrative knowledge depends on a speaker, the morpheme, and
a listener. These narrative stories find a special significance for the authority of the
speaker. In addition, the narratives find there is justification in the narration themselves.
They are legitimized by what they do. Yet science has objectified the narrative and
therefore it loses its legitimacy.

Science being a subset in the narrative of knowledge makes an appeal to the historical
narrative. All knowledge involves narratives that instill language games in a culture,
which determine social relations. Even science has a narrative, although because the
narrative is not legitimate, society suffers. In Plato's dialogues, a precursor for modern
science, a story is told which demonstrates the principle of the platonic dialectic. These
beginnings of scientific systems are fleshed out. However, the dialogues rely clearly on
logic and the Socratic conclusion follow invariable from the premises. The logic is

13
impeccable, while at the same time telling a story about ethics, politics, and the world in
general.

However, this attempt to carry along science in the historical narrative has failed.
Nevertheless, science is represented as the greatest minds worthy of emulation,
instilling in its people freedom in the modern age. In addition, the work savings devices
of science emancipate one from the dregs of the modern age. However, of course, this
is not the historical narrative, but rather, one is held fast in the modern age. **People in
society, by attempting to be useful and profitable by becoming technocrats, or
bureaucrats, become a success by emulating what society values.** In the scientific
narrative, only the enunciation has become important, because there lays the
prescriptives that run the show.

14
The Pragmatics of Scientific Knowledge
The Pragmatics of Scientific Knowledge Summary and
Analysis
There are certain prescriptives that determine whether knowledge is scientific. The fact
that this is true is because these prescriptives follow certain rules. One must provide
proof of what one says. Not only is science supposed to provide proof that a scientific
assertion is true, but it also must be able to defend itself from other alternative theories.
Under this formulation, there is a speaker, a referent, and addressee that are particular
to prescriptives.

Science claims that what it asserts exists naturally in the world. Science in its language
game appeals to the results for the steady march of further research. However, if this
research is true, this truth does not depend on certain proofs.

First, one can provide a proof that makes sense, to believe the assertion if the proof is
true. According to a Lyotard, the second rule is metaphysical. The system is not only an
accumulation of rules, but rather these rules must be consistent and non-contradictory.
The knowledge that one has must be reliable. What all science claims must be able to
be falsified in principle.

The scientific narrative has caused the lessening of influence of the university. The
university has two aspects, which include research and teaching. In addition, these two
include a third aspect, where the didactic brings the student into the discourse of the
researcher. This enables further research. Technocrats have largely taken over the task
of research.

Comparing scientific knowledge and narrative knowledge, science requires specific

language games where if one does not follow the rules of these games, then they must
be excluded. Science ultimately gives rise to institutions and the rise of a professional
class. What this professional class engages in is a competition with each other in order
to facilitate the good of science. It seems clear that the practitioner of science does not
need to be a primary mover in the scientific method but in fact can be a manager and
requires no particular scientific skill. This increases the size of bureaucracy.

All science depends on falsification. If it cannot be falsified in principle then it is not

science. However, it is also science when science refutes another paradigm in science
and therefore claims preeminence. Science is different from a traditional narrative story.
The meter is not important, but rather the rules of science are. A polemical function
takes precedence.

Drawing a parallel between scientific and nonscientific knowledge, narrative knowledge,

one understands this knowledge has aspects that are necessary in society. Science

15
simply follows prescriptives rules while the historical stories provide justification by the
stories themselves.

In modernity, the narrative of knowledge, which has supplanted the historical narrative,
is no longer a legitimate narrative. Science addresses itself as an outgrowth of the
narrative. Yet at the same time science classifies the historical narrative as being a
different sort of discourse, as outmoded, primitive, and backward.

Science adheres to different rules than the historical narrative. These rules are defined
in the language games. Because the historical narrative is internal, the language games
are no longer prescriptive. Those that follow the hero, or the emancipator, or the just, do
it out of a sense of wonderment and awe. On the other hand, science's narrative is a
proscription that supports the stories about itself. In order for the logic of science in the
proofs to be legitimate, they must be valid, otherwise the proof is of no use. In supposed
good science, new discoveries reinforce the beliefs that were held prior. However, the
nature of science is not only to provide further justification for old proofs, but to also also
lie ready to refute established proofs through counterexamples. These counterexamples
throw science into a quandary because rather than forming a foundation for truth, it is
used to tear things down. While this is useful in finding aspects of science that are not
grounded in fact, the question comes up is if has proved some fact; later, other
counterexamples may come to an alternate assessment of the very same fact.

Research and teaching are essential to the training of scientists. Also important is the
didactic of training students to become the next generation of scientists and
researchers, yet this function of the university has fallen in disuse as research at the
university has been taken over by the technocrats and the government bureaucrats
because of the revolution of cybernetics.

16
The Narrative Function and the
Legitimation of Knowledge
The Narrative Function and the Legitimation of
Knowledge Summary and Analysis
One must play by the rules of the narrative game. There is some confusion between the
narrative of science and the narrative of the epic. Science itself attempts to pass itself
off as a narrative of an historical epic. By doing this, science attempts to find its own
legitimation, not unlike the narrative of the hero.

Perhaps the innovation of the narrative of science originated with Plato. Plato's dialectic
aims at finding a narrative for science, which allows legitimation. Plato's technique is the
dialog where the discourse takes place where the conclusion follows from true
propositions like a sound syllogism. This is what is called Plato's dialectic.

This dialectic aims at the pragmatic, which combines story and teaching. This too is a
language game controlled by certain rules. For these logic rules, he provides and
accepted conceptions for the paradigm of science, which at the same time describes a
social function. This comprises Plato's effort at legitimation. This narrative is an attempt
to find legitimation by the narrative of the hero by finding legitimation through its own
consistent cultural and social system. This is necessary in order to find a way where the
system will be accepted socially at large. Otherwise, it becomes a sort of act of
oppression supported through a system of tyranny.

Descartes tries to find legitimation through a sort of story as is shown in his work of the
Meditations. Descartes tries to find a dialogue of social discourse that helps define the
legitimation of science. Using skepticism, he attempts to show that the senses are
reliable. Aristotle, on the other hand, came up with discrete rules to explain the nature of
science since setting up a sort of language game using logic and metaphysics.

Narratives adopted by science are common in European models. For example, Hegel
talks about the unfolding of spirit through the ages arriving at one ultimate point where
knowledge is complete. This, like science, shows an impetus for greater and greater
knowledge, which eventually comes to completion.

Ultimately, science rules by consensus. When one is evaluating scientific principles, it

becomes apparent in history, which at some point the prevailing view of science must
undergo a radical change. This is what is called a paradigm shift. The subsequent social
consensus enables science and politics to join hands and form the technological base
from which to advance science. Therefore, science and politics are inseparable from
ethics and norms.

17
Science has adopted many of the philosophical traditions to advance science. For
example, Hegel talks about spirit that lifts one higher and higher in wisdom as his logic
dictates history. Science too considers itself as a continued culmination of the
educational model. Using the Hegelian model, science will follow a path of increasing
edification and in fact, according to science the perfect union of science and nature will
be arrived at. Unfortunately for science, Einstein's science was not the last word as he
had thought with the advent of quantum physics, which supplanted it.

Descartes too tells a story about how knowledge can be reliable. Using logical
argument, he "proves" that the senses are indeed reliable so that one can have
definitive knowledge about the world. That is, science is reliable. Nevertheless, the
reliability of observation in science is largely thrown into chaos in the postmodern age.

The only artifice that remains is the narrative of performativity. Supposedly, with the
advent of more efficient methods, production can be increased and all can benefit,
although this benefit not be given by the powers that be. With the advent of the
postmodern age, there is no place for science to run in this ideology of pragmatism.

18
Narratives of the Legitimation of
Knowledge
Narratives of the Legitimation of Knowledge Summary
and Analysis
There are two major approaches to the narrative of legitimation: the first is political, and
the other is philosophical. The political narrative emphasizes, among others, what
Lyotard calls humanity as the hero of liberty. Science is not always found here because
of religious leaders and dictators who have forestalled these narratives. This narrative
does not emphasize education, but rather looks at a class of administrators and
professionals with whom to provide a stable society. The second approach, philosophy,
considers the university central in society. Not only is it a repository of educated people
who spread knowledge and do research, but also their training has implications for
spiritual and moral training of society in general.

These universities are constituted to achieve a unifying principle of spirit or life. Science,
on the other hand, serves the ideal for governing by ethical as well as social practices.

The university emphasizes speculation in knowledge and therefore is philosophical in

bent. Therefore, legitimation is not political revolving around state, but rather it is
philosophical. In the modern age, there are attempts to reconcile all the different
disciplines in the universities. One aspect of this may be to increase productivity in the
modern age. This rational narrative is what Lyotard calls the metanarrative. This idea
then is to rise up into a state of complete knowledge that enables the speculative
narrative of the completion of knowledge.

However, the problem with education in the modern age is that it is forced to serve the
state, especially the intermingling of science and the state. According to Fichte and
Hegel, the narrative of the unfolding of history in regards to the state and civil society
must be useful to a state.

These narratives try to find their legitimacy in the narrative itself because of the nature
of social narration, but under Hegel's formulation, true knowledge is in fact indirect and
not objectified. Stories we tell ourselves are incorporated into the narrative so that the
legitimacy of the narrative can find substance in its own story.

These metanarratives cannot depend on themselves for validity, but rather as a keeper
of humanity. These stories can be used in the same way as the narrative of the hero,
liberty, and justice. Justice forms a sort of imperative Kant talked about when one acts
out of duty to an ethical prescription. People act ethically because of the prescription of
the impersonal stories. They act this way out of duty to these narratives in a rational
manner.

19
These stories give the state the flexibility to apply prescriptions to regulate society, as
people will obey these prescriptions they question because they fall within the realm of
liberty, justice, and the hero. This then forms a sort of autonomous melding together of
society. The narrative is objective, independent, and free, at least it seems that way for
them.

The author notes in remarks that the university is a composite of the political party
according to Marx, which is the proletariat. Speculative idealism comprises dialectical
materialism. Dialectical materialism is the method that Karl Marx uses to explain the
unfolding of history. Unfortunately, another approach comes from Martin Heidegger,
which inserts a narrative of race and work as a way in which the state can legitimize
knowledge and institutions. This had severe consequences for the German people, as
one can subsequently see in the history of the Nazi regime.

There are two legitimate narratives in society. First is the philosophical, second is the
political. The political aspect can contain a historical narrative celebrating the hero of
liberty, for example. The philosophical on the other hand is particular to the university.
Modern science does not enter directly into either of these narratives. Science, prior to
the modern age, fits well into the university and has easily found its home here. The
emphasis in historical science was finding truth.

Justice is central in these narratives. For if the knowledge is not just, then it is not a
narrative that provides justification for itself. Justice can be formed for example through
the logical systems of Kant, where the categorical imperative is acted on out of the
necessity of following a moral principle, which is just. This justness makes the
imperative necessary to be ethical.

Because the historical narrative is self-legitimate, one must not objectify knowledge.
Once knowledge becomes independent of its legitimacy, then certain other justification
for legitimization must be arrived at so that society's institutions run properly.

20
Delegitimation
Delegitimation Summary and Analysis
The two narratives, the narrative of emancipation and the narrative of speculation no
longer apply in the postmodern world. This is primarily because of the advent of the
technological age. Nowadays people are more interested in getting results than finding
the value in their actions. With the dissolution of commodities in the postmodern world
replaced with information, communist alternatives as well as Hegelian notions are
discarded; the impetus toward a transformation of economic capitalistic structure is no
longer possible. The commodity loses its use value.

The important question is, is science legitimate? The problem of science that is
important is that science is always transforming, which leads to whole different
worldviews. For example, society went from the Ptolemy and the geocentric universe to
Copernicus' heliocentric universe. Another example from physics is the transition from
Newtonian physics to Einsteinean physics. These positions are not commensurable.
What happens are called paradigm shifts. The change between paradigms is not
consistent. So where is one to find the foundations for science?

A referent in discourse tells one about what is being denotative but not about the thing
in itself. Truth is absent. Lyotard states that science that has not legitimated itself is not
true science. What is the foundation for science if it does have a foundation? Science
becomes little more than ideology, a belief system.

The university is no longer called on to do much of the research. Technological

innovations come about in the technological service industry. Science is no longer
based on the philosophical approach found at the universities, emphasizing truth.
Science is simply a story one tells oneself to maintain the status quo. The function of
research is becoming less bound to the university and more bound to private
technological enterprise. It is becoming more and more so that the university is not a
repository of free thinkers, but rather those bound by ideology.

The distinction is made in modern science between the denotative statement about truth
and a prescriptive statement with practical value in science. The criterion becomes who
is most able to perform the function rather than what the function is based on. Science
cannot be both cognitive and practical at the same time. It is either one or the other, not
both. This is the turning point of the postmodern age, to decide which reigns supreme:
the practical, or the cognitive.

To address sciences as a discrete enterprise may be misguided. However, for science

to be consistent, there must be a basis of specific claims that science makes. What
happens instead is that science is simply a language game relying on game theory of its
own dialogue of what constitutes good science. To learn is to acquire wealth, and as

21
Lyotard states, technocrats are turned into scientists with no connection to the
university.

Technocrats claim that science forms a history of where knowledge is accumulated. In

fact, science never seems to be well grounded. At one point, the pre-Socratic
philosophers claimed all was water only to find out this was not true. The Pythagoreans
claimed that geometric forms were mystical entities that were not only ways to measure
things but constituted reality.

Each change in science tells a story about how humanity sees itself. In the geocentric
universe of Ptolemy, all revolved around the earth and the people who inhabited it.
When moving to a heliocentric model, the world was transformed and found it hard to
accept that one is not in a privileged position among the planets.

Just as Newtonian Science revolutionized physics, so has Einsteinean physics and

finally quantum physics and beyond. More and more one finds they are not the center of
things and light travels away from the point of origin at the same speed as all frames of
reference. With quantum mechanics, the whole world of certainty is thrown into disorder.
Science, which was so reliable and prescient, finds itself in a quandary. All these things
have resulted in the radical shifts in social relation because of the different stories one
tells themselves.

However, science finds that it cannot now be both cognitive and practical at the same
time. The age of reason and science has ended. The only narrative that serves science
is the narrative of performativity and pragmatism.

22
Research and Its Legitimation Through
Performativity
Research and Its Legitimation Through Performativity
Summary and Analysis
The denotative is subject of the pragmatic in the modern age. No longer is there a need
for a universal metalanguage as all things are combined, relying on systems that are
based on axioms. That which constitutes a scientific observation is a subject of the
senses and sensory input can be unreliable. The use of science is often fallen on the
use of devices that augment certain organs for body function. This has been taken so
far as to replicate the human mind, as in the computer.

The importance of science is no longer its truth-value, but rather its usefulness. Like all
technology, it requires investment and the return on that investment should be greater
than the amount invested. This is possible because greater performance increases
productivity. Ironically, the emphasis is on technologies for improvement in the condition
of life for all but rather improves the lot of the status quo.

The truth of the matter is secondary to the performance of technology. The question is is
performance a legitimate criterion for legitimation. The emphasis is on looking to the
return on investment. The criterion is the return of capital to the elite classes. The
pragmatic theory of truth trumps the correspondence theory of truth as being important
in the quest for knowledge. As it turns out, those with the most capital are able to dictate
the nature of the technology and act successfully in the innovation and implementation
of such.

The capitalist political technological class determines what is true based on what is
efficient or pragmatic. No longer do the technologists aspire to truth, but rather aspire to
wealth and social status and privilege. The question is is its power a form of
legitimization. No longer is the game primarily denotative, which is where research
decides what is true or false; instead, a prescriptive technical game is played, one which
emphasizes what is efficient and what is not. No longer is it decided that the language
rules are moral ethical codes; rather, only performance is what is relevant. Morality is
rather based on progress that is made in achieving greater profit rather than greater
truth. This then is the claim to legitimation made by the modern capitalist's class.

This new form of self-legitimation is served well by the computer. Being a mass of
information, information becomes the key to increased performance. These ideas
encoded in language are embraced by culture. This performance is enhanced by the
amount of information about the claim, as being made for the referent. Therefore, the
computer provides a good justification for self-legitimation being in a mass of
prescriptive and denotative information.

23
The computer age is surrounded by ideology. This ideology can be and is repressive.
Not only must the players in the language games adhere to the rules, but also, in order
to play the games, they must follow the rules of the technocrats who determine who get
the resources to apply the pragmatic ideology.

The technocrats, bureaucrats and the politicians hold all the cards. In modern science,
not all were part of the narrative of the language game of science. Because of the
performativity criterion, the university has been released from its philosophical function
of researcher and student and the didactics are no longer being reinforced. The data
banks of the computer with the internet make information available to all that peruse it.
Yet ready access to all web information is in doubt. The professor as a font of
knowledge is reduced to obscurity.

The prescriptive language games can be enforced because the tools of science are not
available to all. Because of training or financial constraints, the prescription of science
and the bestowal of wealth are provided to the chosen few. Even the internet is
restricted and many databases are blocked. The internet is not free. However, if it were
free, then society would be just and the hero could blossom again rather than the
faceless technologist who controls the dispensation of research funding.

24
Education and its Legitimation Through
Performativity
Education and its Legitimation Through Performativity
Summary and Analysis
As the performativity criteria affects politics in business technology, with computers
there are also indications for performativity in an academic arena. The emphasis on
education is to produce more for the social system. Education is expected to fulfill the
country's social needs. By doing so, the culture remains cohesive and vibrant. Formerly,
the emphasis in society by education was the formation of emancipation through the
hero. This was the old narrative. This is the narrative that emphasizes the narratives of
the social aspect of doing what is right, just and true. The university is served as a
formal model for life and is disseminated into to society.

No longer is it the role of the university to produce heroes in emancipation, but rather to
produce usefulness and produce bureaucratic posts, which serve science and politics.
Their two classes of students are those that are the professionals and those that are
trained in technology. No longer is it necessary for a liberal arts education, to be trained
in skills necessary for society, but rather the function of the university is to fill needs in
society or to enhance skills of the individual to make themselves more useful. These
skills learned in academia produce promotions and greater salary to enhance one's
potential.

Secondary, the emphasis is not on doing what is good, just, or right, but rather focuses
on the instances of the legitimization of the narrative of performance, which emphasizes
an increase in productivity. In order to do this, the student must learn the language
games that constitute this supposed legitimization of the performance criteria.

With the emphasis on means rather than ends, the university is no longer the repository
of those that serve the idea of a role of emancipation exclusively. Nowadays, the
university serves as a repository of information that is passed on to the next generation
of students climbing the ladder of education while neglecting research.

The university is just a repository of information that can be readily served by computers
more efficiently. It is clear that more information can be served on a computer memory
banks, libraries, data banks, terminals, more efficiently and more completely than
individual professors who serve the same function can.

For performativity, with the emphasis on culture and power, the worth of information as
purely practical is found to be useless. All the information that advances the status quo
is valued and supported, while other types atrophy and die. Now no longer is the natural
world important, this positivity is the important thing, the most real thing is the

25
information contained in the database. These databases constitute the system of what
is now called nature in the postmodern world.

That which is most important is to design a strategy or to organize information in such a

manner that increases performativity. This is the natural man. The emphasis is on the
reproduction of skills and education with the transmission of information that will need to
be generalized in order to be more efficiently transmitted. This has led to the desire of
the status quo for programs in interdisciplinary studies. However, a unification of
knowledge does not serve the foundation of legitimization. An attempt is made to find a
way that science can become universal, because otherwise the education model is
distorted in the supposed legitimization of performativity. The attempt is to go back to
the historical narrative, which is self-legitimized.

When trying to do interdisciplinary studies, there is no metalanguage used that relates

interdisciplinary studies to this supposedly new language. The question of the
legitimation of performance is called into question with this new approach. The
emphasis is on teamwork, not truth and justice. There is no way truth and justice can be
important if they serve the performativity criteria.

The university system originally was more for the production of knowledge in research
rather than transmitting information from generation to generation with their students.
Research can be more easily attained in technological institutions without special skills,
stimulating imaginative minds. The death of the professors comes. Data banks
computers are sufficient with more information at transmitting knowledge.

With modern science, the university is becoming decimated as a research institution.

Research has been acquired by the private and public technologists who perform their
function according to the language game of performativity. The university now serves
the function of didactics. The professor trains the student and what is learned is applied
to society. The connection between research and didactics has been severed, maybe
forever.

However, even the didactic function of the university is being brought into question. No
longer is education important in this formal setting. The university nurtures the narrative
of the hero and freedom, but without research, the university sits stagnant. Online and
long-distance learning has taken the place of the professor. Even computers in some
cases comprise the instruction in tutorial course collecting and scoring ones efforts.

With the narrative of performativity, there has been an attempt to synthesize and
criticize all knowledge and bring it into a whole. This attempt, modeled after the
historical narrative, is actually intended to make the university and therefore society
more efficient, more pragmatic, and more homogeneous, fitting in with the language
game, for example, of Hegel's evolution of spirit coming to know itself, or Marx in his
historical materialism. **Unfortunately, what has been accomplished is the more
dreadful forms of Marxism; rather than utopia, whatis formed a sort of dictatorship.**

26
Postmodern Science as the Search for
Instabilities
Postmodern Science as the Search for Instabilities
Summary and Analysis
Science has come to a crossroads. In Hegel's phenomenology of spirit, it is discussed
about unfolding of spirit toward a culmination of perfect wisdom. Marx borrowed from
Hegel in his doctrine of historical materialism. Yet a crisis exists in the postmodern age.
Science is thought to be determinative, reliable and consistent, and complete. However,
in fact, science is none of these. This belief in determinism is based on the positive
philosophy of efficiency.

Science traditionally is not acquiring knowledge through building on previous building

blocks. Rather through counterexample, a scientific theory is proved invalid. This fact
reduces science to near anarchy in scientific systems. There are many examples,
including quantum mechanics. Classical determinism finds that the basic stuff of
science continues to be out of science's reach. For example in quantum mechanics, the
more one tries to observe an object, the more difficult it is to find the place where that
object is in nature. Nature is unpredictable.

Therefore, the performativity criterion does not fit. Postmodern science depends more
on induction and therefore probabilities. In modern science, the axioms form the basis
for logical conclusions and are deterministic conclusions and the language games form
this basis for this sort of deterministic ideology.

Lyotard gives the example of a dog that is torn between fight and flight. It is thought that
if the flight response gains precedence then the dog will flee. On the other hand, under
different conditions, the dog will fight. Yet if these thresholds are reached
simultaneously, it is uncertain how the dog will act. Lyotard says the control variables
are continuous while the state variables are discontinuous. The idea of scientific control
points again toward ideology.

Therefore, the fight is on between determinism and non-determinism. For a process to

be known, one must know the local state of the process and not the process as a whole.
This sort of situation is paradoxical. The conclusion then is that science in the
postmodern age is without a firm foundation for knowledge. The information is
incomplete and leads to contradictions and paradoxes.

The scientific language game of performativity is at a crossroads in the postmodern

age. The history of science claims that science is predictable. However, with each new
paradigm, this predictability becomes more and more uncertain. When the scientific
paradigm changed between the Newtonian views of the universe to the Einsteinean
view, theories of physics needed to be modified. While it was thought that the speed of

27
light was consistent to one point of origin, Einstein proved that the speed of light always
escapes from a frame of reference at the speed of light, and there is no central origin
that can explain this. Not only is one not the center of the universe, but one is not even
central in the place one stands, and all is relative.

With the theory of quantum mechanics, not only is one not central in the place one
stands, but nothing at all is central in itself. **This fact that empirically everything is
predictive in science must be rejected.** So many questions face science because of
these undecidables, that science cannot be thought of as being reliable at all. This fact
forces modern science to throw out the performance criteria because there is no
regularity basic to science, and ultimately, modern science is not doing traditional
science at all.

In order for science to retain the mantle it has built for itself it must either embrace
legitimacy or let all people have access to knowledge, or society must atrophy and
perhaps eventually die.

28
Legitimation by Paralogy
Legitimation by Paralogy Summary and Analysis
No longer is the grand narrative of Hegel's dialectic of spirit or the emancipation of
Marx, and the hero no longer serves as a validation for postmodern science. To the
contrary, Habermas rather feels that the state is known through intellect and the
freedom of the will. However, the problem with this is that science has been
delegitimized. Science must search for new forms of legitimization. Can paralogy be a
form of legitimization?

One must embrace the fact that modern science's ideology destabilizes one's ability to
explain it and therefore to derive norms. It is not without rules. In order for society to
function, there must be knowledge in complexity. The outcome of this is anarchic in
unmanageable narratives of science, which results in paralogy. One must decide that
the systems that rely on language games do not change in a consistent manner
according to the changing paradigms. In order for the system to manage information, it
must be reduced in complexity.

This atomization of the perspectives of knowledge must not be avoided in order to

decrease the excess of complexity into the system. The performative criterion
eliminates metaphysical discourse, including fables, and promotes clear minds and
steely wills. His recognition of the anarchy in scientific realism elevates knowledge and
leads to what Lyotard calls metadiscourse. Science has a different role in its pragmatic
role approach that ultimately leads to the opposite of a stable system. Carried over from
the modern age to the postmodern age, one must cooperate with the authorities or one
is in violation of the rules of the language game.

Rules are not in themselves denotative but prescriptive. These metaprescriptives

compel the person to accept different prescriptions. Habermas seems to be incorrect
that one can reach universal consensus in the postmodern world that can be applied to
the language games. Language games are not consistent with science and require
creative rules.

The recognition that language is contained across different aspects of society that are
not internally consistent is clear. The nature of knowledge seems infinite, so to reconcile
these inconsistencies seems to be impossible.

Therefore, the emphasis must be around paralogy. In order for science to be consistent,
knowledge must be accessible to all. For to do otherwise would lead to an incomplete
system of knowledge which is not legitimate. Only under such a scenario where justice
is served and one's pursuit of desire for the unknown would be preserved, enables the
system to function under the new narrative of paralogy.

29
As it turns out, science is paradoxical and paraloguous. In order for the legitimacy of the
language game to be addressed, one must recognize that no position in the world is
sacrosanct. The world is not objective. Data changes in relation to how the data is
observed. Things when they are observed manifest different properties than when they
are not. Nothing is discrete and regular. The only regularity that can be talked about
resides in anarchy.

Science must recognize this anarchy. The philosophical narrative of the unfolding of
history lies with a different paradigm in the modern age. It is becoming painfully clear
that the performativity criteria cannot be justified based on what one knows about
science today. To hold on to the pragmatic emphasizing production amounts to cynicism
that the scientist must adopt to maintain hegemony. As time goes on, it become clearer
and clearer that the language games of modern science are simply ways of blatantly
enforcing prerogatives and modern science is reduced to greed.

For society to prosper, traditional science must be performed again. By engaging all in
the dialogue of science by allowing free access to the computer databases society will
thrive and the world will mature. The new paradigm can be actualized and the social
relations can once more be transformed, at least until the next age raises its head.

30
Appendix: What is Postmodernism?
Appendix: What is Postmodernism? Summary and
Analysis
Habermas posits that in changing the status of the aesthetic experience, one is no
longer primarily interested in exploring the historical aspect of art. He states that the arts
and experiences bridge the gap between the cognitive, ethical and political discourse,
which leads to a unity of experience. This then is in keeping with Hegel, who
emphasized the totalizing of experience.

When one looks at realism from the perspective of the avant-garde, inherent in
capitalism is only brute power, where familiar objects, institutions, and social rules are
mocked by the avant-garde. The age of enlightenment is over in the postmodern world.
All realistic art is reduced to pornography, and people are told what is art rather than art
speaking for itself. This leads to degrading of art. The attack on art as it is as
reactionary, and the politically oriented academic decides what is art in a sort of
hegemony. This again shows the ideology of a scientific culture. The patrons are told
what to consider is great and what to dismiss.

The anything goes of realism in modern art is that of money in the realization of power.
The important thing is the testimony of people in politics in language games relying on
certain knowledge and commitments. This ideological bent can lead to nihilism,
according to Nietzsche.

Modernism does not end in the postmodern society, but rather, postmodernism comes
out of modernism and modernism gives birth to postmodernism. Lyotard finely states
that man is waging war on the fatality of experience like Hegel or Marx. One must seize
reality and the witnesses of that which is undecided in order to save the honor of the
language games in the new narrative where the emphasis is on paralogy and paradox.

Postmodernism is born out of modernism. Yet there are reactionary forces that wish to
forestall the transition from the modern age to the postmodern age. Art is often called
the mirror of society and the nature of art provides the mirror where one can understand
this nature.

Realism is the driving force behind the modern age. Art reflected realism, but the
transmission of mores point in a different direction. To enforce realism on art can lead to
the atrophy of art. Present society is in retrograde and realistic determinations are
enforced to prevent the avant-garde from gaining influence. However, the avant-garde
can enter the stage in any age and criticism is inevitable.

It must be recognized that times change and things will continue to change in the future.
There is no culmination of thought, no ideal condition.

31
If conformity is enforced through language games, then art will cease to be art. Art only
represent the truth of the world in the eyes of society. A mismatch inevitably leads to
dissolution and atrophy in the body politic. If art does not tell us about the nature of the
world as the positivists might have it, then nature no longer conforms to the language
games in spite of the facts of the positivists.

Reality is no longer, discrete, continuous, and reliable. Realism is no longer legitimate

as a representation of nature, and if "reality" is enforced with threats of economic
sanction, then this amounts to terrorism, wherein the language rules threaten one
against legitimacy and truth.

32
Characters
Karl Marx
Karl Marx originated communism. He wrote the Communist Manifesto, Capital, and
others. He was a famous social critic of capitalism. He believed that history was
determined. Nevertheless, he also believed that the masses of people can change
history. Contrary to historical materialism, this is called the class struggle view.

The emphasis is on the hero, liberation, and salvation. According to Lyotard, Marxism is
no longer applicable to the cybernetic age. This is because commodities are no longer
based on use value of a product but rather the source of value is derived from
information itself. Marx's narrative depends on a pre-cybernetic age. With social
structure based on information, alienation from the products of one's labor is not
produced in the dialectical process of Karl Marx. The only change that occurs through
the modern age in history is an increase in performance, not an emphasis on when
there is the search for truth.

Hegel
Hegel was a German philosopher who came up with the idea of the evolution of spirit.
His most famous work was the phenomenon to spirit, which traces the evolution of this
self to absolute knowledge from self-awareness. Karl Marx borrowed his theory of
historical materialism from Hegel. Hegel was popular in Germany and Karl Marx was
popular in France.

** Both undertook describing the unfolding of history, whether Marx's humanism or

Hegels idealism, where a sort of telos or end culminates in perfection at the end of
history.**

These ideas of the totalization of knowledge are in conflict with the postmodern age.
That is because science is not a system of knowledge in itself but rather composed of
prescriptive language games.

Habermas
Habermas is a twentieth century philosopher with a different take on the postmodern
age. He seemed to take the side of the pragmatists which Lyotard does not. Habermas
sees no contradiction between the scientific age and the possibility of reason,
emancipation, and rational critical communication. **Lyotard feels that the narrative of
Hegel and his student Marx reveals a sort of end or telos in the unfolding of history,
adopted by science, which brings about a grand culmination and a finality of history
where change ends and history is fulfilled.** Habermas does not seem to recognize that

33
with the advent of the cybernetic age the social relations are forever changed and are
ultimately not subject to all of Marx's critique.

Of the philosophers that Habermas embraces, many of them are criticized by Lyotard.
With the continued existence of rationality and not examining the changes brought
about by the age of quantum mechanics, Habermas misses the point of the end of pure
rationalism embraced by science. Habermas does not question the road of legitimation
as a road for social health.

Frederick Nietzsche
Lyotard references Nietzsche as being a-historical and showing the end of the
Apollonian approach to knowledge. He believes that the narratives contained by Hegel
and Marx are historical but not relevant in the postmodern age.

Kant
Lyotard references him when talking about the imperative of acting morally and ethically.
He also references him when talking about all art as engaging the emotions in a sort of
answer to realism's stark reality. Kant does not emphasize the objectification of
knowledge, but rather, in his work, identifies the synthetic aprori that embraces both the
being in the world and the being in oneself together.

Many Scientists
Lyotard references many scientists for support for his theory of paralogy and
paradoxiology, which illustrates among other things the nature of quantum mechanics
which delineates the shortcomings of Einstein and Newton. He talks also about Gödel,
Laplace, Brillouin, John Perrin, and others.

Descartes
Descartes is discussed in reference to his position on skepticism. His story of
skepticism is a narrative of science. **Rather than emphasizing the historical narratives
of the hero, emancipation and justice, his ideas are founded on rational analysis where
he asserts he proves the reliability of the senses.** It is questionable that this narrative
is legitimized because of this rational content in the postmodern age.

Plato
Plato, like Descartes, presents himself as a historical narrative. Plato's writings
emphasize proto-science. Also used is the scientific method of deduction to determine

34
ethical principles, not unlike how science uses the modern language game and the
narrative of pragmatism.

35
Objects/Places
Postmodern Society
A time that follows the industrial age. Taking that which intuitively seems to be
unpresentable and representing it (i.e., in art). Searches for new way to present the
world which lies beyond realism. Application of a way of understanding the world that
reflects the seeming undecidability of truth in science.

Social Class
Described by Marx in understanding the economic strata of society. In the industrial age
this is formed by the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The idea has become largely
obsolete, displaced by bureaucracy and technology in the age of computers and
cybernetics where knowledge forms the bases for power.

Stalinism
In the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics there was a communist revolution
where communist leader Joseph Stalin who followed Lenin, led the communist party.
Through intimidation and murder he established a totalitarian society. Has come to
represent the nature of communism as being totalitarian in nature.

Pragmatics
Has come to represent the goal of the scientific method becoming the basis for ethics,
valuing industrial performance. Pragmatism asserts that that which works comprises the
truth of the matter. This has become the prevailing paradigm in modern industrial
society including science whose values are assimilated by the workers at large.

Scientific Knowledge
The idea that all in the empirical world can be known at least in principle. Science
presents itself as a way to get greater and more concise knowledge of the universe. The
method of science in contrast is to refute other scientific theories through
counterexamples. This leads to confusion in the nature of science.

The present scientific paradigm ostensibly relies on precision and logic, as well as the
accepted language games, which reduces the technocrats and bureaucrats to faceless
automatons embracing an ideology (e.g., greater precision), which conflicts with it's
mission (e.g., in refuting other scientific research).

36
Terrorism
The practice of science, where those that do not agree to adhere to the rules of the
language games, which are delegitimate. Where to find ways of understanding the
world that doesn't rely on pragmatism, are marginalized. This marginalization is forced
hence what Lyotard calls terrorism, where these scientists are threatened and coerced
to follow the prevailing protocol, or are denied funding effectively being removed from
the language game. Also other methods to have them removed through force are used.

This terror action is to enforce the fiction of pragmatism as a legitimization of modern

science, when in fact science has been thrown in confusion because of theories of
quantum physics and other theories. This pragmatism serves the technocrats and the
bureaucrats who are unable and unwilling to give pragmatism up.

Quantum Physics
A new paradigm which is marginalized by the technocrats and bureaucrats emphasis on
realism. It has been found through quantum physics that the understanding of matter is
governed my imprecision and the resulting lack of control. This is a threat to the
ideology of pragmatics and the telos or end of knowledge as posed, where history
culminates into a state of perfection. With the new paradigm demonstrated by Quantum
Physics the reliability of knowledge seems to be breaking down conflicting with the
ideology of realism and it's corrollary pragmatism.

Marxist Utopia
The ideology that history is coming to a sort of culmination where through revolution one
reaches a heaven on earth. This utopia results from the final revolution between the
workers and the capitalists where the capitalists are overthrown.

This belief is outmoded in the postmodern age. In the industrial age there were
commodities that were quantified to identify value. But with the postmodern age the
value is based on information and not commodities.

The position of the Marxist Utopia is the unfolding of history which accords with Hegel's
culmination of history, is a sort of idealistic splendor where the end is the resolution of
all social contradiction that previously existed, resulting in universal harmony.

Performativity
Ultimately the ethical valuing of hard work inculcated in society by the "ethical" person.
This formulation for ethics relies on scientific realism where the knowledge states are
forever advancing toward some supposed legitimate goal. Through the pragmatism of
science, the usefulness of knowledge is emphasized as being a continual effort to

37
increase production by becoming more and more practical. The performance of all in
society is emphasized.

Avant-gardism
The position of a group that confronts the prevailing world order as outmoded.
Advocated for new modes of knowing especially in the arts although can apply to
culture and politics. Means literally advance guard or vanguard usually bringing to light
art or literature that is innovative and that divorces itself from the status quo.

38
Themes
Legitimation
One major theme of Lyotard book is legitimation. **Legitimation is where those in
society embrace the narrative of the prevailing worldview, when this worldview fits the
current cultural and societal attitudes.** That is, if the story is coherent. The narratives of
old, for example, emphasize the coming of age of the hero, the emancipator. These
narratives emphasized the unfolding of history and taught the triumph of the just in fair
society. These narratives serve society well and are legitimized. Because stories are
based on a search for truth, in this truth, one can arrive at in the stories' ethical
prescriptions. That is, the stories are consistent.

However, science is always going through transformations. A paradigm that is apparent

in one age may not apply to a different age. In the past, science was a search for truth;
nowadays, the prevailing paradigm emphasizes performativity, which expresses itself as
an increase in productivity. Just as the universe was understood through scientists as
the earth being the center of the universe, followed by the belief that the sun being the
center in the heliocentric paradigm, such to will social systems change as a reaction to
science.

As science changes, so does society; in fact, science has a direct effect on the social
factors of society in the narratives one tells. At the time of cybernetics, societies are
thrown into confusion. The words someone tells oneself are real are set in the language
games and have no basis and reality.

One might think of a computer as simply a repository of knowledge, while in the

programming are involved the language games. These language games are outmoded
in the postmodern world. However, the former language games are in fact an artifact of
the modern age. In order for society to grow to be just and free, society must express a
legitimate narrative of science, which becomes a basis for the social system and
cybernetics. Only then can there be a legitimized system.

Language Games
In language games a role is practiced, whether in the past or in the present, and will be
in the future. Language games set the rules of society. This is not an issue for the older
narratives, where these narratives are self-legitimized. The rules of society are based
on language games. Social relations are determined by language games. The stories
one tells oneself are determined by social functioning. Depending on the paradigm of
knowledge, this determines the nature of social intercourse. The postmodern paradigm
of language games are neither embraced by modern science nor are allowed in society.
The language games are reduced to competition and those with the greatest resources
determine the nature of the language games.

39
However, since commodities are no longer products of labor, but rather information, the
alienation contained in the theory of Marxism or the unfolding of spirit in Hegel have met
a brick wall. Because of the new paradigm of science, in which regularity cannot be
predicted in the natural world, it is necessary for all people of society locally to be
involved in order to arrive in a discourse of justice. Otherwise, the language game is
merely a form of repression, which is delegitimized and simply the result of ideology.

The Postmodern Age

The postmodern age is born out of the modern age. The modern age can be thought of
as the industrial age, while the postmodern age can be thought of as the cybernetic
age. Science undergoes transformations continuously. Its quest for knowledge, or lack
thereof, is a form of repressive ideology; it has not kept up with the demands of truth
and justice. Therefore, the ideology of science is reduced to dominance and repression.
This dominance is not a remedy and it is clear that knowledge cannot progress.

In order to address this issue, one must find a different language game. With the age of
quantum mechanics, nothing is certain in science. The relationship of the scientist to the
thing studied results in paradox and contradiction. All experimentation to be complete
must examine the discontinuous nature of reality. In order to prevent the disintegration
of science into the hegemony of terrorism, one must address the shortcomings of the
language games of modern science.

In the postmodern age, one seeks the unanimity of all, and research involving all the
language games must be freed from the performance criteria. Some scientist's
unreliable data prevents a firm foundation in the modern age; only then can the
shortcoming be addressed in the postmodern age. It is addressed by engaging all
people in the discourse of knowledge contained in cybernetics, and therefore can
contribute to the system. Universal access to knowledge is necessary in order to have a
language game not based on ideology. In the postmodern age, all must have access to
knowledge, or else disintegration of institutions is unavoidable.

40
Style
Perspective
The perspective of the writer is objective. It is clear that the writer is concerned about
the nature of the change was transformed society. He objects to reactionary approaches
to the accumulation of knowledge. He is critical of science but has great hopes for the
cybernetic age, with his compassion for the disenfranchised. He is also hopeful about
the future but is cynical about the prospects of future society reconciling the
contradictions inherent in science.

Lyotard is biased against the capitalistic structure that reigns supreme in the modern
world. He was a professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Paris-Vincennes.
Lyotard strives to be objective, but in a work of this nature, there is no view from
nowhere. Lyotard is critical of Heidegger then sympathetic with Nietzsche. Overall, he is
biased against centralized government and looks for society where all contributed in a
sort of democracy in an organized whole. His opinions clearly show that he believes in
postmodernism, where science must change. He states as much.

He is not well versed in science. He uses specific examples of science, which is not
consistent and complete, but he is unable to explain why this is so, lacking a
background in physics. His attempt to explain science from a philosophical perspective
is clouded because in his book, science is to be flawed and has taken itself out of the
discourse of philosophy. However, the fact remains that it would be hard to decide how
exactly science separates itself from philosophy, which of course he values for science.

Tone
**His tone is objective but there may be some bias.** He is neither accusatory, nor
sarcastic or bombastic. The statements about science reveal the partisanship because
of his focus in education on science. Of course the Professor of Philosophy is partial to
philosophy. It is said that when all one has to work with is a hammer, the whole world
looks like nails.

Structure
This is a short, pithy book. This book has approximately 147 pages. There is a forward,
an introduction, fourteen sections, an appendix, extensive notes, and an index. The
notes are extensive and detailed. In all, there are 231 notes comprising twenty-three
pages. The notes are exhaustive, and his mastery of the major schools of thought in the
twentieth century is apparent. His extensive use of philosophers demonstrates his
acumen. The index is three pages long. The front matter does contain a short and
simple table of contents. The forward is useful although it is not basic. It appears that
this book is not separated into chapters, but rather headings. Being that the book is

41
relatively short, it seems natural that he would use headings. Some of the sections are
very short, comprising only a few pages. Later on in the work, the sections become
longer. There are not discrete sections separate from other sections in this book and
material tends to be redundant, but this is necessary in order for Lyotard to present his
complex position.

42
Quotes
"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."
chapter 1 page 5

"In this case legitimation is the process by which a "legislator" dealing with scientific
discourse is authorized to prescribe the stated conditions (in general conditions of
internal consistency and experimental verification) determining whether a statement is
to be included in that discourse for consideration by the scientific community."
chapter 2 page 8

"Copernicus states that the path of the planets is circular. Whether this proposition is
true or false it carries within it a set of tensions all of which affect each of the pragmatic
posts it brings into play: sender, addressee, and referent. These "tensions" are classes
of prescriptions which regulate the admissibility of the statement as scientific."
chapter 7 page 23

"Take, for example, a closed door between 'the doors closed' and 'open the door' there
is no relation of consequence as defined in propositional logic. The two statements
belong to two anonymous sets of rules defined different kinds of relevance and
therefore of competence. Here, the effect dividing into cognitive or theoretical on one
hand, and practical reason on the other is to attack the legitimacy of the discourse of
science. Not directly but indirectly, by revealing that it is a language game of its own
rules."
chapter 10 page 40

"If education must not only provide for the reproduction of skills, but also for their
progress then it follows that the transmission of knowledge should not be limited to the
transmission of information, but should also include training in all the procedures that
can increases one's ability to connect the fields is jealously guarded from one another
by the traditional organization knowledge."
chapter 12 page 52

"Science does not expand by means of positivism of efficiency. The opposite is true:
working on a proof means searching for and "inventing" counterexamples, in other
words, the unintelligible; supporting an argument means looking for "paradox" and
legitimating it with new rules in the games of reasoning."
chapter 13 page 54

"The conclusion we can draw from this research this research (and much more not
mentioned here) is that the continuous differentiable function is losing its preeminence
as a paradigm of knowledge and prediction Postmodern science— by concerning itself

43
with such things as undecidables, the limits of précised control, conflicts characterized
by incomplete information. 'Fracta,' catastrophies paradoxes—is theorizing its own
evolution as discontinuous, catastrophic, nonrectifiable and paradoxical."
chapter 13 page 60

"It cannot be denied that there is persuasive force in the idea that context control and
domination are inherently better than their absence. The performativity criteria has its
'advantages'. It excludes in principle adherence to a metaphysical discourse; it requires
the renunciation of fables; it demands clear minds and cold wills; it replaces the
definition of essences with the calculation of interactions; it makes the 'players' assume
responsibility not only for the statements they propose, but also for the rules to which
they submit those statements in order to render them acceptable."
chapter 14 page 62

"To the extent that science is differential, its pragmatics provide the antimodel of a
stable system. A statement is deemed worth the moment it marks a difference from
what is already known, and after an argument and proof in support of it has been found.
Science is a model of an open system in which a statement becomes relevant if it
'generates ideas,' that is, if it generates other statements and other game rules. Science
possess' no general metalanguage which all other languages can be transcribed and
evaluated."
Chapter 14 page 64

"The objects and the thoughts which originate in scientific knowledge and the capitalistic
economy convey with them one of the rules which supports their possibility: the rule that
there is no reality unless testified by a consensus between partners over certain
knowledge and certain commitments."
appendix: page 77

44
Topics for Discussion
1. What is the meaning of Postmodernism?

2. What future does Lyotard see for the universities and knowledge in general in the
postmodern age?

3. How has science become a source of ideology in the postmodern age?

4. What does Lyotard mean by "terrorism" which is used by science?

5. What are the pragmatics of science and how do these pragmatics effect social,
political, and technological systems.

6. What are problems with legitimation and delegitimation and how does this effect
science and the arts?

7. How are narratives important in understanding legitimation?

8. What is the role of information in the postmodern age and how have computer
transformed the universities and society in general?

45