1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:01,919 Welcome back to the Deep Dive. We're here to 2 00:00:01,919 --> 00:00:04,780 take on the complex stuff, the heavy research, 3 00:00:04,940 --> 00:00:07,379 so you can get straight to the core ideas. And 4 00:00:07,379 --> 00:00:10,080 today we're tackling something that, well, it 5 00:00:10,080 --> 00:00:12,099 feels less like looking back at old philosophy 6 00:00:12,099 --> 00:00:14,560 and much more like reading a prediction for right 7 00:00:14,560 --> 00:00:17,160 now. Yeah, it really does. We're diving deep 8 00:00:17,160 --> 00:00:19,980 into Jean -Francois Lyotard's book from 1979, 9 00:00:20,460 --> 00:00:23,460 The Postmodern Condition. A report on knowledge. 10 00:00:23,679 --> 00:00:27,039 Right. And think about that date, 1979. I mean, 11 00:00:27,059 --> 00:00:29,679 this is way before personal computers were everywhere. 12 00:00:29,719 --> 00:00:32,020 Long before the Internet, as we know it. Definitely 13 00:00:32,020 --> 00:00:36,079 before AI became this huge force in culture and 14 00:00:36,079 --> 00:00:38,640 tech. Incredible foresight. It really is. Because 15 00:00:38,640 --> 00:00:41,200 the sources you gave us, they show Lyotard basically 16 00:00:41,200 --> 00:00:43,320 mapping out the challenges we're wrestling with 17 00:00:43,320 --> 00:00:45,340 today. Things like, you know, who decides what 18 00:00:45,340 --> 00:00:47,119 knowledge is legitimate? How does technology 19 00:00:47,119 --> 00:00:49,939 dominate us? Is truth itself changing? So our 20 00:00:49,939 --> 00:00:52,299 mission today isn't just an academic exercise. 21 00:00:52,560 --> 00:00:55,719 We're trying to use Lyotard, almost like a decoder 22 00:00:55,719 --> 00:00:58,399 ring for our current moment. Exactly. We need 23 00:00:58,399 --> 00:01:00,979 to grasp how he saw the rules changing, the foundations 24 00:01:00,979 --> 00:01:03,859 of science and society shifting as we moved into 25 00:01:03,859 --> 00:01:06,560 what he called the postmodern age. And connect 26 00:01:06,560 --> 00:01:09,680 that directly to our world, a world increasingly 27 00:01:09,680 --> 00:01:12,200 run by machine learning, massive data systems, 28 00:01:12,359 --> 00:01:15,379 and this constant push for, well, efficiency. 29 00:01:15,920 --> 00:01:17,760 Okay, so where do we start? We have to begin 30 00:01:17,760 --> 00:01:21,560 with Lyotard's, let's say, very famous, maybe 31 00:01:21,560 --> 00:01:24,099 overly simplified definition of what postmodernism 32 00:01:24,099 --> 00:01:26,739 is. Right, the big one. He defines it simply 33 00:01:26,739 --> 00:01:30,959 as incredulity toward metanarratives. Incredulity, 34 00:01:30,959 --> 00:01:33,840 just not believing anymore. And metanarratives, 35 00:01:33,920 --> 00:01:36,370 that's the... absolute key term here, isn't it? 36 00:01:36,450 --> 00:01:39,409 It is. These are the grand stories, the unifying 37 00:01:39,409 --> 00:01:41,769 explanations. Think of them like master keys 38 00:01:41,769 --> 00:01:44,709 that were used for centuries to legitimize knowledge, 39 00:01:44,810 --> 00:01:47,890 society, progress, everything. But Lyotard says 40 00:01:47,890 --> 00:01:50,689 we just stopped buying them. We lost faith. So 41 00:01:50,689 --> 00:01:53,370 what were these huge stories that he says basically 42 00:01:53,370 --> 00:01:56,439 fell apart? He points to two main ones, two colossal 43 00:01:56,439 --> 00:01:58,299 narratives that really propped up the whole modern 44 00:01:58,299 --> 00:02:00,599 way of thinking. First, there's what he calls 45 00:02:00,599 --> 00:02:02,900 the speculative narrative. You often connect 46 00:02:02,900 --> 00:02:05,000 this with thinkers like Hegel. It's the idea 47 00:02:05,000 --> 00:02:07,439 that history is this single unified journey, 48 00:02:07,640 --> 00:02:10,560 the dialectic of the spirit, always marching 49 00:02:10,560 --> 00:02:12,639 towards complete knowledge, towards self -realization. 50 00:02:12,960 --> 00:02:16,199 So the belief was that if we just keep learning 51 00:02:16,199 --> 00:02:19,219 more, discovering more science, history itself 52 00:02:19,219 --> 00:02:22,819 will naturally lead us to wisdom. And justice. 53 00:02:22,960 --> 00:02:25,319 That's the core idea. Yeah. It basically guaranteed 54 00:02:25,319 --> 00:02:27,800 that searching for truth automatically meant 55 00:02:27,800 --> 00:02:29,780 you were also pursuing what's right and just. 56 00:02:30,120 --> 00:02:33,379 The second big one was the narrative of emancipation. 57 00:02:33,379 --> 00:02:35,580 Right. The story of freedom. Exactly. This one 58 00:02:35,580 --> 00:02:38,759 paints humanity as the hero, you know, battling 59 00:02:38,759 --> 00:02:41,379 ignorance, fighting oppression, using science 60 00:02:41,379 --> 00:02:43,699 and reason to achieve liberty, freedom for the 61 00:02:43,699 --> 00:02:45,879 individual, freedom for the worker, eventually 62 00:02:45,879 --> 00:02:49,539 leading to universal peace. Big, sweeping, optimistic 63 00:02:49,539 --> 00:02:52,599 stories. Very optimistic. And Leotard's point 64 00:02:52,599 --> 00:02:55,219 is that both of these narratives, the very stories 65 00:02:55,219 --> 00:02:57,379 that justified our big institutions like the 66 00:02:57,379 --> 00:02:59,699 state, the university, science itself, they've 67 00:02:59,699 --> 00:03:02,460 lost their power. They don't work anymore as 68 00:03:02,460 --> 00:03:04,759 the ultimate source of legitimacy for truth or 69 00:03:04,759 --> 00:03:07,000 justice. We just can't tell those stories with 70 00:03:07,000 --> 00:03:09,719 a straight face now. OK, so if those grand narratives, 71 00:03:09,819 --> 00:03:12,569 those foundations are gone. If we're skeptical 72 00:03:12,569 --> 00:03:15,569 about inevitable progress towards total knowledge 73 00:03:15,569 --> 00:03:18,610 or universal freedom, what rushes in to fill 74 00:03:18,610 --> 00:03:21,210 that vacuum? What's the defining feature of this 75 00:03:21,210 --> 00:03:24,530 new postmodern reality he describes? Well, that's 76 00:03:24,530 --> 00:03:26,330 his central hypothesis right there in chapter 77 00:03:26,330 --> 00:03:28,490 one. He says the fundamental status of knowledge 78 00:03:28,490 --> 00:03:31,229 itself is changing as societies move into this 79 00:03:31,229 --> 00:03:33,969 post -industrial, postmodern era. And technology 80 00:03:33,969 --> 00:03:36,229 is the engine driving this change. Absolutely. 81 00:03:36,409 --> 00:03:39,409 He pinpoints three key technological pillars. 82 00:03:39,849 --> 00:03:42,770 Informatics. cybernetics and what he called advanced 83 00:03:42,770 --> 00:03:45,610 language techniques basically computation systems 84 00:03:45,610 --> 00:03:48,229 control and the sophisticated ways we use language 85 00:03:48,229 --> 00:03:50,150 and symbols and technology so we're shifting 86 00:03:50,150 --> 00:03:52,729 from a world governed by philosophical stories 87 00:03:52,729 --> 00:03:54,729 to one where knowledge is processed controlled 88 00:03:54,729 --> 00:03:57,110 and valued almost entirely through the lens of 89 00:03:57,110 --> 00:03:59,909 technology that's the big shift hashtag tag i 90 00:03:59,909 --> 00:04:02,870 die knowledge is commodity and the reign of performativity 91 00:04:02,870 --> 00:04:05,669 okay let's really unpack that shift because this 92 00:04:05,669 --> 00:04:07,810 feels like the part of leotard's report that 93 00:04:07,810 --> 00:04:09,909 just leaps off the page for anyone living today 94 00:04:10,240 --> 00:04:13,419 If knowledge isn't primarily about emancipation 95 00:04:13,419 --> 00:04:15,979 or enlightenment anymore, what does it become 96 00:04:15,979 --> 00:04:18,259 in this new technological landscape? It becomes 97 00:04:18,259 --> 00:04:20,800 a commodity, pure and simple. And the transformation 98 00:04:20,800 --> 00:04:25,319 is pretty brutal. For knowledge to even function 99 00:04:25,319 --> 00:04:27,699 in these new channels, remember, this is 1979, 100 00:04:27,920 --> 00:04:30,399 the dawn of the information age. It has to be 101 00:04:30,399 --> 00:04:32,879 translated. Translated into what? Into quantities 102 00:04:32,879 --> 00:04:36,839 of information, into bits. data. And right there, 103 00:04:36,860 --> 00:04:39,040 that's the link to AI, isn't it? The prerequisite 104 00:04:39,040 --> 00:04:42,199 for training any model. It's exactly that. Lyotard 105 00:04:42,199 --> 00:04:44,540 explicitly predicts this. He says any aspect 106 00:04:44,540 --> 00:04:46,759 of knowledge that can't be translated into bits, 107 00:04:46,920 --> 00:04:49,379 anything that resists being quantified, structured, 108 00:04:49,699 --> 00:04:52,379 processed by a machine, it's going to be sidelined. 109 00:04:52,379 --> 00:04:54,560 It'll be discarded. So if you can't measure it, 110 00:04:54,639 --> 00:04:57,500 digitize it, feed it into the system, it just 111 00:04:57,500 --> 00:05:00,250 doesn't count. Essentially, yes, it loses its 112 00:05:00,250 --> 00:05:02,709 value within this new framework. He even argued 113 00:05:02,709 --> 00:05:04,709 that new research would inevitably be shaped 114 00:05:04,709 --> 00:05:06,829 by whether or not it could be translated into 115 00:05:06,829 --> 00:05:10,029 machine language. The medium dictates the message 116 00:05:10,029 --> 00:05:13,029 in a way. That sounds like a massive loss. A 117 00:05:13,029 --> 00:05:15,589 systemic erasure of anything qualitative, anything 118 00:05:15,589 --> 00:05:19,029 deeply humanistic that resists easy measurement 119 00:05:19,029 --> 00:05:22,529 is a huge loss. He specifically points to the 120 00:05:22,529 --> 00:05:25,529 decline of this old, very important principle. 121 00:05:25,920 --> 00:05:28,339 The idea that acquiring knowledge is fundamentally 122 00:05:28,339 --> 00:05:31,899 tied to forming the mind, the person, the German 123 00:05:31,899 --> 00:05:35,420 ideal of Bildung. Bildung. That's about holistic 124 00:05:35,420 --> 00:05:37,519 development, right? Creating an enlightened person, 125 00:05:37,600 --> 00:05:39,399 a well -rounded citizen. Exactly. It was about 126 00:05:39,399 --> 00:05:41,519 the whole person. But in this new system, that 127 00:05:41,519 --> 00:05:44,819 ideal just, it falls into disuse. It seems quaint, 128 00:05:44,839 --> 00:05:47,240 inefficient. And what takes its place? Pure function. 129 00:05:47,730 --> 00:05:50,569 Utility. Precisely. The whole focus shifts to 130 00:05:50,569 --> 00:05:52,769 measurable skills, to utility. The relationship 131 00:05:52,769 --> 00:05:54,829 changes, too. Knowledge providers, researchers, 132 00:05:55,069 --> 00:05:57,589 teachers, and the users' corporations, governments, 133 00:05:57,790 --> 00:05:59,569 they start acting like producers and consumers. 134 00:05:59,769 --> 00:06:02,529 By knowledge commodities. Yes. Knowledge gets 135 00:06:02,529 --> 00:06:05,649 produced to be sold. It gets consumed to be valuable 136 00:06:05,649 --> 00:06:08,430 in the next production cycle. It loses what Lyotard 137 00:06:08,430 --> 00:06:11,069 called its value of use, the idea that knowledge 138 00:06:11,069 --> 00:06:14,470 is good in itself, an end in itself. Now it's 139 00:06:14,470 --> 00:06:17,420 all about exchange value. So learning isn't about 140 00:06:17,420 --> 00:06:19,519 becoming a better person. It's about getting 141 00:06:19,519 --> 00:06:22,339 a better ROI, a better return on investment. 142 00:06:22,579 --> 00:06:25,779 That's the logic, yeah. And this shift, Leiphard 143 00:06:25,779 --> 00:06:28,279 saw, dramatically changes the stakes on a global 144 00:06:28,279 --> 00:06:30,759 level. How so? Well, if knowledge is now this 145 00:06:30,759 --> 00:06:33,500 crucial information commodity essential for productive 146 00:06:33,500 --> 00:06:36,980 power, it becomes the main prize in global competition, 147 00:06:37,220 --> 00:06:39,120 maybe the most important prize. More important 148 00:06:39,120 --> 00:06:41,600 than territory or raw materials or even labor. 149 00:06:41,839 --> 00:06:44,829 Potentially, yes. He predicted nations and huge 150 00:06:44,829 --> 00:06:47,250 corporations would fight intensely to control 151 00:06:47,250 --> 00:06:49,589 information. We're basically seeing that play 152 00:06:49,589 --> 00:06:52,129 out now, the digital cold wars, the battles over 153 00:06:52,129 --> 00:06:54,949 data, AI supremacy. It's all about mastering 154 00:06:54,949 --> 00:06:57,449 information. OK, so the old narratives justifying 155 00:06:57,449 --> 00:06:59,709 knowledge are gone. Yeah. Knowledge is a commodity. 156 00:06:59,889 --> 00:07:02,250 The new goal is productive power. But how does 157 00:07:02,250 --> 00:07:04,610 the system judge this commodity? If truth and 158 00:07:04,610 --> 00:07:06,449 justice aren't the measures anymore, what is? 159 00:07:06,959 --> 00:07:10,319 The new yardstick is performativity. Performativity. 160 00:07:10,560 --> 00:07:13,100 Define that for us. It's fundamentally about 161 00:07:13,100 --> 00:07:15,879 efficiency, optimizing the system's performance, 162 00:07:16,259 --> 00:07:19,439 getting the best possible input output ratio. 163 00:07:19,779 --> 00:07:21,899 Does it work? Does it make the system faster, 164 00:07:22,079 --> 00:07:24,560 more productive, more powerful? It sounds purely 165 00:07:24,560 --> 00:07:27,300 technological. It is. It's a technological criterion, 166 00:07:27,540 --> 00:07:30,420 and Lyotard is adamant. It's completely insufficient 167 00:07:30,420 --> 00:07:33,379 for judging what's true or just. It bypasses 168 00:07:33,379 --> 00:07:36,000 those questions entirely. It doesn't ask, is 169 00:07:36,000 --> 00:07:38,860 this right? It only asks, does this enhance performance? 170 00:07:39,160 --> 00:07:41,639 And this relentless drive for performance, for 171 00:07:41,639 --> 00:07:43,639 efficiency, Lyotard connects it to a kind of 172 00:07:43,639 --> 00:07:46,459 subtle control, even terror. He does, and it's 173 00:07:46,459 --> 00:07:48,259 a really chilling part of the book. The core 174 00:07:48,259 --> 00:07:51,040 message, the mandate of this technical logic 175 00:07:51,040 --> 00:07:53,519 becomes, be operable, that is, commensurable, 176 00:07:53,720 --> 00:07:57,100 or disappear. Wow. So if you or your ideas or 177 00:07:57,100 --> 00:07:59,560 your work can't be measured, optimized, slotted 178 00:07:59,560 --> 00:08:01,459 neatly into the system's drive for efficiency, 179 00:08:01,819 --> 00:08:04,439 you just become irrelevant. You vanish. You're 180 00:08:04,439 --> 00:08:06,860 rendered invisible, useless to the system. It's 181 00:08:06,860 --> 00:08:09,360 a logic dedicated entirely, as he puts it, to 182 00:08:09,360 --> 00:08:11,560 the accroissement de la puissance, the increase 183 00:08:11,560 --> 00:08:14,060 of power. It's like the algorithm itself issues 184 00:08:14,060 --> 00:08:16,519 this ultimatum. It sounds uncannily like the 185 00:08:16,519 --> 00:08:18,879 driving principle behind almost every major AI 186 00:08:18,879 --> 00:08:22,240 development today. Speed, scale, optimization 187 00:08:22,240 --> 00:08:25,310 metrics. often trumping ethical considerations 188 00:08:25,310 --> 00:08:28,110 or deeper meaning. It maps almost perfectly. 189 00:08:28,350 --> 00:08:30,430 And this drive for efficiency, Letitart points 190 00:08:30,430 --> 00:08:33,870 out, isn't neutral. It's directly tied to wealth. 191 00:08:34,070 --> 00:08:36,190 Okay, connect those dots. How does efficiency 192 00:08:36,190 --> 00:08:38,470 link to wealth? He traces it back historically. 193 00:08:38,870 --> 00:08:41,409 Even thinkers like Descartes needed money for 194 00:08:41,409 --> 00:08:44,149 their labs for experiments. This seeded the realization 195 00:08:44,149 --> 00:08:47,870 early on. You need resources to establish proofs. 196 00:08:47,970 --> 00:08:51,590 No money, no truth, in a practical sense. Ah, 197 00:08:51,750 --> 00:08:54,500 okay. And this develops over time into the core 198 00:08:54,500 --> 00:08:57,519 equation governing our age. Wealth equals efficiency 199 00:08:57,519 --> 00:08:59,960 equals truth. Wealth equals efficiency equals 200 00:08:59,960 --> 00:09:02,860 truth. Unpack that. Why does being wealthy make 201 00:09:02,860 --> 00:09:05,000 you more likely to be right? Because wealth gives 202 00:09:05,000 --> 00:09:07,240 you the power to administer proof. Think about 203 00:09:07,240 --> 00:09:08,860 it. If you're the richest player, you can afford 204 00:09:08,860 --> 00:09:10,620 the best equipment, fund the biggest research 205 00:09:10,620 --> 00:09:12,919 projects, gather the most massive data sets, 206 00:09:13,019 --> 00:09:15,299 build and run the most powerful AI models. You 207 00:09:15,299 --> 00:09:18,059 can generate more evidence. Exactly. In a world 208 00:09:18,059 --> 00:09:20,460 where truth claims increasingly rely on complex 209 00:09:20,460 --> 00:09:23,220 data and evidence, the ability to fund the generation 210 00:09:23,220 --> 00:09:26,000 and presentation of that evidence becomes paramount. 211 00:09:26,039 --> 00:09:28,940 The wealthiest entity can literally outprove 212 00:09:28,940 --> 00:09:31,500 competitors, sometimes regardless of the actual 213 00:09:31,500 --> 00:09:34,379 underlying truth of the claim. They control the 214 00:09:34,379 --> 00:09:36,919 means of demonstrating truth. That completely 215 00:09:36,919 --> 00:09:40,580 undermines the romantic image of the lone, impartial 216 00:09:40,580 --> 00:09:43,580 scientist searching for truth. It makes scientific 217 00:09:43,580 --> 00:09:46,200 authority partly dependent on economic power. 218 00:09:46,570 --> 00:09:49,429 It shifts the ground significantly. And this 219 00:09:49,429 --> 00:09:52,309 logic inevitably reshapes the main institution 220 00:09:52,309 --> 00:09:55,629 designed for knowledge, the university. Chapter 221 00:09:55,629 --> 00:09:57,649 12, the functional university. What happens there? 222 00:09:57,789 --> 00:10:00,330 If the goal is no longer that holistic building, 223 00:10:00,610 --> 00:10:03,690 creating enlightened citizens, then the university's 224 00:10:03,690 --> 00:10:06,350 role gets reduced. It becomes functionally subordinate 225 00:10:06,350 --> 00:10:09,009 to the needs of the system, to maximizing performance. 226 00:10:09,450 --> 00:10:11,549 So its primary goal becomes? To produce competences. 227 00:10:12,029 --> 00:10:14,549 Specific, marketable, measurable skills that 228 00:10:14,549 --> 00:10:16,350 feed the system. And the curriculum naturally 229 00:10:16,350 --> 00:10:19,610 follows that demand. It has to. Driven by global 230 00:10:19,610 --> 00:10:22,490 competition, universities prioritize fields directly 231 00:10:22,490 --> 00:10:25,250 linked to informatics, to what Lyotard termed 232 00:10:25,250 --> 00:10:27,970 telematique, that blend of telecommunications 233 00:10:27,970 --> 00:10:31,210 and computing, basically modern IT and networking. 234 00:10:31,549 --> 00:10:35,870 So demand surges for computer scientists, engineers, 235 00:10:36,190 --> 00:10:39,769 data analysts. Cyberneticians, linguists, logicians, 236 00:10:39,870 --> 00:10:42,870 the people who can build, maintain and optimize 237 00:10:42,870 --> 00:10:45,970 the global information infrastructure, the technical 238 00:10:45,970 --> 00:10:48,370 intelligentsia, as he calls them. And this creates 239 00:10:48,370 --> 00:10:50,750 a kind of split within the university's offerings, 240 00:10:50,990 --> 00:10:54,309 a definite cleavage. He sees two main functions 241 00:10:54,309 --> 00:10:57,529 emerging. First, professionalization, churning 242 00:10:57,529 --> 00:11:00,029 out those specialized technical experts the system 243 00:11:00,029 --> 00:11:03,070 needs. And the second. Second is permanent education 244 00:11:03,070 --> 00:11:05,919 or recycling. This is about providing useful 245 00:11:05,919 --> 00:11:09,080 competencies to, well, everyone else. Often this 246 00:11:09,080 --> 00:11:10,840 includes students from fields that are now seen 247 00:11:10,840 --> 00:11:14,019 as less useful, humanities, arts, some social 248 00:11:14,019 --> 00:11:16,700 sciences. They get retrained, reskilled for more 249 00:11:16,700 --> 00:11:18,740 immediate technical application. It sounds like 250 00:11:18,740 --> 00:11:20,700 vocational training for those who didn't pick 251 00:11:20,700 --> 00:11:23,000 the right major initially. Even the role of the 252 00:11:23,000 --> 00:11:25,460 professor changes dramatically, doesn't it? Radically. 253 00:11:25,720 --> 00:11:27,940 If knowledge is just transmissible information 254 00:11:27,940 --> 00:11:31,200 facts, data points, then machines can handle 255 00:11:31,200 --> 00:11:33,940 that. Data banks linked to intelligent terminals 256 00:11:33,940 --> 00:11:36,480 can deliver content more efficiently than a lecturer 257 00:11:36,480 --> 00:11:38,899 in many cases. So what's left for the human professor? 258 00:11:39,320 --> 00:11:42,440 The role shifts. It moves away from just transmitting 259 00:11:42,440 --> 00:11:44,379 content. The new focus is on teaching the new 260 00:11:44,379 --> 00:11:47,759 languages, primarily informatics, coding, data 261 00:11:47,759 --> 00:11:50,799 literacy, and crucially, honing the skill of 262 00:11:50,799 --> 00:11:53,120 interrogation. Interrogation, you mean like asking 263 00:11:53,120 --> 00:11:56,059 the right questions? Exactly. Knowing where to 264 00:11:56,059 --> 00:11:58,659 find the relevant information in the vast sea 265 00:11:58,659 --> 00:12:01,720 of data and knowing how to query the system effectively, 266 00:12:02,120 --> 00:12:04,820 that becomes the core competence, more so than 267 00:12:04,820 --> 00:12:06,580 actually possessing all the knowledge internally. 268 00:12:06,899 --> 00:12:08,639 Which completely changes the student's mindset, 269 00:12:08,779 --> 00:12:11,320 right? It flips the script. Leotard noticed the 270 00:12:11,320 --> 00:12:13,720 student's fundamental question shifts. It's no 271 00:12:13,720 --> 00:12:17,039 longer, is it true? It becomes, what is it for? 272 00:12:17,539 --> 00:12:20,019 Or in the context of this knowledge market, is 273 00:12:20,019 --> 00:12:22,279 it sellable? And in the context of system power, 274 00:12:22,519 --> 00:12:25,429 is it efficient? The quest for knowledge becomes 275 00:12:25,429 --> 00:12:27,889 tangled up with the quest for utility, market 276 00:12:27,889 --> 00:12:30,950 value, and operational power. Okay, so we've 277 00:12:30,950 --> 00:12:33,720 laid out this picture. The old guiding stories 278 00:12:33,720 --> 00:12:36,340 are dead. Knowledge is now a commodity judged 279 00:12:36,340 --> 00:12:39,240 by efficiency. To really grasp the depth of the 280 00:12:39,240 --> 00:12:41,759 crisis Leotard saw, we need to talk about truth 281 00:12:41,759 --> 00:12:44,440 itself. He contrasts two basic kinds of knowledge 282 00:12:44,440 --> 00:12:46,620 in chapters 6 and 7. Let's start with the older 283 00:12:46,620 --> 00:12:49,200 form, narrative knowledge. Narrative knowledge 284 00:12:49,200 --> 00:12:51,559 is the knowledge embedded in culture, in custom, 285 00:12:51,679 --> 00:12:54,379 in social practices. It's often passed down through 286 00:12:54,379 --> 00:12:56,899 stories, myths, traditions. He calls it compact. 287 00:12:57,360 --> 00:12:59,019 Because it bundles different kinds of knowing 288 00:12:59,019 --> 00:13:01,159 together. Knowing how to do things, knowing how 289 00:13:01,159 --> 00:13:02,740 to live in the community, knowing how to speak 290 00:13:02,740 --> 00:13:05,019 its language and understand its codes. And its 291 00:13:05,019 --> 00:13:07,059 authority comes from tradition, from the community 292 00:13:07,059 --> 00:13:10,519 itself. Exactly. It doesn't need external validation 293 00:13:10,519 --> 00:13:13,379 or scientific proof. Its legitimacy comes from 294 00:13:13,379 --> 00:13:16,360 being shared, from being recited and lived. The 295 00:13:16,360 --> 00:13:18,740 community is both the storyteller and the story. 296 00:13:18,940 --> 00:13:21,899 It operates in what feels like timeless, immemorial 297 00:13:21,899 --> 00:13:24,220 tradition. Okay, then you have the other kind. 298 00:13:24,980 --> 00:13:27,509 Scientific knowledge. As described in Chapter 299 00:13:27,509 --> 00:13:29,929 7, how is that different? It's almost the opposite 300 00:13:29,929 --> 00:13:31,929 in many ways. Scientific knowledge deliberately 301 00:13:31,929 --> 00:13:34,549 isolates itself from other ways of knowing, other 302 00:13:34,549 --> 00:13:36,889 language games, as Léotard calls them. It sets 303 00:13:36,889 --> 00:13:39,409 up strict rules. Rules like? It demands proof, 304 00:13:39,610 --> 00:13:42,070 empirical evidence, logical consistency, peer 305 00:13:42,070 --> 00:13:44,799 review. It's inherently critical and argumentative 306 00:13:44,799 --> 00:13:47,100 based on refutation and building upon previous 307 00:13:47,100 --> 00:13:49,960 findings. It's also hierarchical. There are experts 308 00:13:49,960 --> 00:13:52,740 whose consensus matters and it operates in linear 309 00:13:52,740 --> 00:13:56,059 historical time, building a cumulative body of 310 00:13:56,059 --> 00:13:57,860 knowledge. And Lyotard points out in Chapter 311 00:13:57,860 --> 00:14:00,039 eight that these two forms of knowledge don't 312 00:14:00,039 --> 00:14:02,240 just coexist peacefully raise a power dynamic, 313 00:14:02,539 --> 00:14:05,840 a profoundly unequal one. Science, with its demand 314 00:14:05,840 --> 00:14:09,059 for proof and universal rules, inevitably looks 315 00:14:09,059 --> 00:14:11,879 at narrative knowledge and sees, well, non -knowledge. 316 00:14:12,090 --> 00:14:15,909 dismisses it as fable, myth, superstition, ideology. 317 00:14:16,429 --> 00:14:18,929 Because narratives don't play by science's rules. 318 00:14:19,190 --> 00:14:22,049 They don't submit to empirical testing or logical 319 00:14:22,049 --> 00:14:25,450 argumentation in the same way. And Lyotard argues 320 00:14:25,450 --> 00:14:27,909 this very attitude science demanding that all 321 00:14:27,909 --> 00:14:30,250 knowledge conform to its criteria for legitimacy 322 00:14:30,250 --> 00:14:34,090 is the deep root of cultural imperialism. It's 323 00:14:34,090 --> 00:14:36,250 the drive to universalize one way of knowing. 324 00:14:36,769 --> 00:14:39,470 But here's the incredible irony. For science 325 00:14:39,470 --> 00:14:42,909 to justify itself, to legitimize its own project, 326 00:14:43,110 --> 00:14:45,750 it had to fall back on storytelling. It needed 327 00:14:45,750 --> 00:14:49,110 its own grand narratives. Precisely. The two 328 00:14:49,110 --> 00:14:51,190 we talked about earlier, emancipation and speculation, 329 00:14:51,570 --> 00:14:53,830 they were essentially narratives. They reintroduced 330 00:14:53,830 --> 00:14:56,210 storytelling to give science a purpose, a direction, 331 00:14:56,330 --> 00:14:58,889 a justification beyond just its internal rules. 332 00:14:59,190 --> 00:15:01,230 So the narrative of emancipation used science 333 00:15:01,230 --> 00:15:03,509 to tell a story about achieving justice and freedom. 334 00:15:03,769 --> 00:15:05,669 Privileging the prescriptive language game, what 335 00:15:05,669 --> 00:15:07,850 should be, and the speculative narrative use 336 00:15:07,850 --> 00:15:09,629 science to tell a story about achieving total 337 00:15:09,629 --> 00:15:12,409 truth and understanding. Privileging the denotative 338 00:15:12,409 --> 00:15:15,169 language game, describing what is. They were 339 00:15:15,169 --> 00:15:17,529 necessary fictions in a way to make the scientific 340 00:15:17,529 --> 00:15:20,409 enterprise meaningful on a societal level. But, 341 00:15:20,429 --> 00:15:23,289 as we establish, these narratives lost their 342 00:15:23,289 --> 00:15:27,029 credibility. Chapter 10 talks about delegitimation. 343 00:15:27,090 --> 00:15:30,509 How did that happen? Partly external forces like 344 00:15:30,509 --> 00:15:33,429 capitalism and technology? Right. The sheer success 345 00:15:33,429 --> 00:15:35,909 of technology and market forces started to make 346 00:15:35,909 --> 00:15:38,629 the old stories feel less relevant. Efficiency 347 00:15:38,629 --> 00:15:41,250 became its own justification. But there was also 348 00:15:41,250 --> 00:15:44,710 a crucial internal erosion. Internal. How so? 349 00:15:45,200 --> 00:15:47,419 It happened when science, or rather philosophy 350 00:15:47,419 --> 00:15:50,840 influenced by science, started applying the scientific 351 00:15:50,840 --> 00:15:53,539 demand for rigorous justification to science's 352 00:15:53,539 --> 00:15:56,100 own foundational claims. Turning the skepticism 353 00:15:56,100 --> 00:15:58,220 back on itself. Exactly. Take the speculative 354 00:15:58,220 --> 00:16:00,980 narrative, the idea of a single unfolding historical 355 00:16:00,980 --> 00:16:04,100 process like Hegel's spirit. To make that argument 356 00:16:04,100 --> 00:16:06,220 work, you have to presuppose that such a universal 357 00:16:06,220 --> 00:16:09,620 process actually exists. But if you apply rigorous 358 00:16:09,620 --> 00:16:12,179 skepticism, you realize that presupposition isn't 359 00:16:12,179 --> 00:16:14,940 a proven fact. It's just defining the starting 360 00:16:14,940 --> 00:16:17,179 rules of the speculative language game itself. 361 00:16:17,379 --> 00:16:19,080 You're basically saying, let's agree this story 362 00:16:19,080 --> 00:16:21,340 is true so we can tell the story. The foundation 363 00:16:21,340 --> 00:16:23,360 turns out to be just another narrative choice, 364 00:16:23,460 --> 00:16:25,850 not a hard truth. This feels like the perfect 365 00:16:25,850 --> 00:16:27,850 point to bring in that other source material, 366 00:16:28,110 --> 00:16:30,970 Nietzsche's essay on truth and lies in a non 367 00:16:30,970 --> 00:16:33,389 -moral sense. Because Nietzsche goes even deeper, 368 00:16:33,470 --> 00:16:35,190 doesn't he? He doesn't just question the big 369 00:16:35,190 --> 00:16:37,230 narratives. He attacks the very idea of truth 370 00:16:37,230 --> 00:16:39,769 and the intellect that seeks it. He absolutely 371 00:16:39,769 --> 00:16:43,200 does. Nietzsche's perspective is... bracingly 372 00:16:43,200 --> 00:16:45,799 critical. He sees the human intellect not as 373 00:16:45,799 --> 00:16:48,600 some noble tool for discovering reality, but 374 00:16:48,600 --> 00:16:51,480 as a fragile, temporary, and rather arrogant 375 00:16:51,480 --> 00:16:53,919 adaptation for survival. And its main function 376 00:16:53,919 --> 00:16:56,840 isn't finding truth, but dissimulation, deception, 377 00:16:57,240 --> 00:17:00,360 cunning. He argues our intellect evolved primarily 378 00:17:00,360 --> 00:17:03,159 to help us navigate the war of all against all, 379 00:17:03,259 --> 00:17:05,940 bellum omnium contra omnis, the natural state 380 00:17:05,940 --> 00:17:08,339 of competition and danger. We use it to trick 381 00:17:08,339 --> 00:17:10,079 others, to protect ourselves, to get what we 382 00:17:10,079 --> 00:17:12,710 want. Wow. So if our minds are fundamentally 383 00:17:12,710 --> 00:17:14,950 built for deception, how does something like 384 00:17:14,950 --> 00:17:17,849 truth even emerge? Out of social necessity, basically. 385 00:17:18,150 --> 00:17:20,289 Nietzsche argues humans are weak individually 386 00:17:20,289 --> 00:17:23,170 and need society to survive. But constant deception 387 00:17:23,170 --> 00:17:26,190 makes society impossible. So out of sheer exhaustion 388 00:17:26,190 --> 00:17:28,970 and the need for stability, people make a kind 389 00:17:28,970 --> 00:17:32,170 of peace treaty. A peace treaty. Yeah. They agree 390 00:17:32,170 --> 00:17:35,130 on fixed binding names or designations for things. 391 00:17:35,329 --> 00:17:38,009 They create common concepts and rules for language. 392 00:17:38,650 --> 00:17:41,349 Truth, in this sense, is simply adhering to these 393 00:17:41,349 --> 00:17:44,069 agreed upon conventions. The drive for truth 394 00:17:44,069 --> 00:17:46,930 isn't a pure love of reality. It's a drive for 395 00:17:46,930 --> 00:17:50,130 social order and predictability. So lying isn't 396 00:17:50,130 --> 00:17:51,750 just about saying something false. It's about 397 00:17:51,750 --> 00:17:54,809 breaking the social contract. Exactly. For Nietzsche, 398 00:17:54,950 --> 00:17:57,630 the liar is someone who uses the agreed upon 399 00:17:57,630 --> 00:18:00,390 words, the valid designations, in a way that 400 00:18:00,390 --> 00:18:02,490 violates the convention, like saying I am rich 401 00:18:02,490 --> 00:18:05,849 when the agreed facts make you poor. Society 402 00:18:05,849 --> 00:18:08,210 doesn't hate the deception itself, he argues. 403 00:18:08,390 --> 00:18:10,890 It hates the harmful consequences of breaking 404 00:18:10,890 --> 00:18:13,289 the linguistic rules, the disruption it causes. 405 00:18:13,549 --> 00:18:15,849 Okay, but Nietzsche's critique goes even deeper, 406 00:18:15,930 --> 00:18:18,329 to the relationship between language and reality 407 00:18:18,329 --> 00:18:21,150 itself, the thing in itself. He says language 408 00:18:21,150 --> 00:18:23,619 is fundamentally inadequate, right? Completely 409 00:18:23,619 --> 00:18:26,500 inadequate. He describes concept formation as 410 00:18:26,500 --> 00:18:29,440 a series of arbitrary leaps of metaphors piled 411 00:18:29,440 --> 00:18:32,299 on metaphors. It starts with a raw nerve stimulus 412 00:18:32,299 --> 00:18:35,619 from the outside world. That stimulus gets translated 413 00:18:35,619 --> 00:18:38,680 into an internal image. That's the first metaphor. 414 00:18:38,920 --> 00:18:41,700 A jump from physical impulse to mental picture. 415 00:18:41,920 --> 00:18:45,079 Okay. Then that image gets imitated by a sound, 416 00:18:45,240 --> 00:18:47,420 a word that's the second metaphor. A jump from 417 00:18:47,420 --> 00:18:50,460 image to symbol. Each step is an arbitrary transfer, 418 00:18:50,740 --> 00:18:53,230 losing information. moving further away from 419 00:18:53,230 --> 00:18:55,750 the unique raw reality of the thing in itself, 420 00:18:56,150 --> 00:18:59,049 which remains inaccessible. So when we create 421 00:18:59,049 --> 00:19:02,579 a general concept like the word leaf, what are 422 00:19:02,579 --> 00:19:04,720 we actually doing, according to Nietzsche? We're 423 00:19:04,720 --> 00:19:06,839 performing an act of violent abstraction. We're 424 00:19:06,839 --> 00:19:09,119 taking countless unique individual leaves, all 425 00:19:09,119 --> 00:19:11,279 different in shape, color, texture, stage of 426 00:19:11,279 --> 00:19:13,559 decay, and we're deliberately ignoring all those 427 00:19:13,559 --> 00:19:16,240 differences. We equate the unequal. We force 428 00:19:16,240 --> 00:19:19,099 them all into one category, leaf. Yes. We create 429 00:19:19,099 --> 00:19:21,720 the concept by forgetting the specifics, by smoothing 430 00:19:21,720 --> 00:19:23,759 over the differences. The resulting structure 431 00:19:23,759 --> 00:19:26,180 of concepts, logic, and science is what he famously 432 00:19:26,180 --> 00:19:29,240 calls a graveyard of perceptions. A graveyard 433 00:19:29,240 --> 00:19:32,869 of perceptions. That's powerful. We build this 434 00:19:32,869 --> 00:19:36,089 neat, orderly mausoleum of concepts on top of 435 00:19:36,089 --> 00:19:39,009 the messy, vibrant reality of individual experiences. 436 00:19:39,269 --> 00:19:42,130 And we mistake that structure, that conceptual 437 00:19:42,130 --> 00:19:45,789 edifice for reality itself. It becomes our regulative 438 00:19:45,789 --> 00:19:49,250 and imperative world, a system of laws and categories 439 00:19:49,250 --> 00:19:52,009 that feels more solid and reliable than the flux 440 00:19:52,009 --> 00:19:54,470 of raw perception. Which leads to his devastating 441 00:19:54,470 --> 00:19:57,019 final definition of truth. Truth is nothing but 442 00:19:57,019 --> 00:20:00,720 a movable host of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms. 443 00:20:01,619 --> 00:20:03,779 Illusions, which we have forgotten are illusions. 444 00:20:04,059 --> 00:20:06,160 They are metaphors that have become worn out 445 00:20:06,160 --> 00:20:08,759 and have been drained of sensuous force. Coins 446 00:20:08,759 --> 00:20:11,420 which have lost their embossing. Wow. Just worn 447 00:20:11,420 --> 00:20:13,380 out metaphors. Coins that have lost their picture. 448 00:20:13,539 --> 00:20:15,599 So let's connect this directly to the age of 449 00:20:15,599 --> 00:20:18,480 AI, especially large language models. If truth 450 00:20:18,480 --> 00:20:20,940 is just this collection of agreed upon but ultimately 451 00:20:20,940 --> 00:20:24,250 worn out metaphors. Then an LLM, trained on basically 452 00:20:24,250 --> 00:20:26,329 the entire history of human text. Is essentially 453 00:20:26,329 --> 00:20:29,509 a machine optimized to recognize and reproduce 454 00:20:29,509 --> 00:20:32,730 those very worn out metaphors. Precisely. It's 455 00:20:32,730 --> 00:20:35,750 trained using Lyotard's criterion of performativity 456 00:20:35,750 --> 00:20:38,690 to predict the most statistically likely sequence 457 00:20:38,690 --> 00:20:41,509 of words, the most common connections, the most 458 00:20:41,509 --> 00:20:44,410 established linguistic patterns. It becomes a 459 00:20:44,410 --> 00:20:47,250 master of the graveyard of perceptions, reinforcing 460 00:20:47,250 --> 00:20:50,210 the existing conceptual structures. So it excels 461 00:20:50,210 --> 00:20:52,880 at navigating the... consensus, the agreed upon 462 00:20:52,880 --> 00:20:55,859 meanings, the coins that have lost their embossing. 463 00:20:55,960 --> 00:20:58,240 It's brilliant at it, but it doesn't necessarily 464 00:20:58,240 --> 00:21:00,940 connect with the raw underlying reality Nietzsche 465 00:21:00,940 --> 00:21:03,740 talks about. It's a machine built on sophisticated 466 00:21:03,740 --> 00:21:06,079 agreement within the existing linguistic system, 467 00:21:06,200 --> 00:21:08,880 not necessarily a tool for discovering disruptive 468 00:21:08,880 --> 00:21:11,259 new truths that challenge that system. Which 469 00:21:11,259 --> 00:21:13,539 brings us perfectly to the next section. If the 470 00:21:13,539 --> 00:21:16,279 dominant systems, including AI, are geared towards 471 00:21:16,279 --> 00:21:18,500 efficiency and reinforcing consensus based on 472 00:21:18,500 --> 00:21:21,240 these worn -out concepts, how does any real innovation 473 00:21:21,240 --> 00:21:23,500 or progress in knowledge actually happen? How 474 00:21:23,500 --> 00:21:26,319 do we break out? Hashtag tag three, postmodern 475 00:21:26,319 --> 00:21:28,940 science, system instability, imperialism. Right, 476 00:21:28,980 --> 00:21:31,099 so you have this dominant ideology, particularly 477 00:21:31,099 --> 00:21:33,480 in management and systems theory, people like... 478 00:21:33,619 --> 00:21:36,920 Parsons or Lumen, who tend to view society as 479 00:21:36,920 --> 00:21:40,019 this complex but ultimately manageable self -regulating 480 00:21:40,019 --> 00:21:43,500 system. The goal is always optimization, maximum 481 00:21:43,500 --> 00:21:45,720 performance. The performativity principle again. 482 00:21:45,819 --> 00:21:48,460 Exactly. But Lyotard does something brilliant 483 00:21:48,460 --> 00:21:51,519 here. He uses insights from postmodern science 484 00:21:51,519 --> 00:21:54,859 itself to show why this dream of total control 485 00:21:54,859 --> 00:21:58,319 of a perfectly efficient system is actually a 486 00:21:58,319 --> 00:22:01,680 myth. Science itself becomes the anti -model 487 00:22:01,680 --> 00:22:03,990 for total stability. How does he do that? He 488 00:22:03,990 --> 00:22:06,589 points to fundamental limits. For instance, he 489 00:22:06,589 --> 00:22:08,329 brings up the concept from information theory 490 00:22:08,329 --> 00:22:11,289 that information costs energy, meaning that the 491 00:22:11,289 --> 00:22:14,130 very act of gathering, processing, and utilizing 492 00:22:14,130 --> 00:22:17,410 information requires energy, resources, effort. 493 00:22:17,730 --> 00:22:20,589 So the bureaucratic dream of achieving perfect 494 00:22:20,589 --> 00:22:23,450 control by knowing absolutely everything about 495 00:22:23,450 --> 00:22:26,589 the system's initial state actually becomes counterproductive. 496 00:22:26,690 --> 00:22:29,829 Yes. The sheer cost and complexity of managing 497 00:22:29,829 --> 00:22:32,640 that perfect information overload the system. 498 00:22:32,779 --> 00:22:35,880 It leads to slowdowns, rigidity, negative feedback 499 00:22:35,880 --> 00:22:39,500 loops essentially, self -asphyxiation. This gives 500 00:22:39,500 --> 00:22:42,380 a kind of scientific explanation for why massive 501 00:22:42,380 --> 00:22:45,119 overbearing bureaucracies often become so inefficient 502 00:22:45,119 --> 00:22:48,410 and weak. They drown in their own data. So perfect 503 00:22:48,410 --> 00:22:50,509 knowledge isn't just impossible, it's actually 504 00:22:50,509 --> 00:22:53,390 inefficient. According to this view, yes. And 505 00:22:53,390 --> 00:22:55,970 beyond the energy cost, Lyotard highlights major 506 00:22:55,970 --> 00:22:58,609 breakthroughs in 20th century science and math 507 00:22:58,609 --> 00:23:01,690 that directly challenge the idea of a stable, 508 00:23:01,769 --> 00:23:04,789 predictable, fully knowable system. What are 509 00:23:04,789 --> 00:23:06,910 the key examples he uses? Well, first, there's 510 00:23:06,910 --> 00:23:09,349 Gödel's incompleteness theorem. This was a bombshell 511 00:23:09,349 --> 00:23:11,430 in mathematics. What did it show? Gödel proved 512 00:23:11,430 --> 00:23:14,170 that in any formal system complex enough to include 513 00:23:14,170 --> 00:23:16,970 basic arithmetic, there will always be true statements 514 00:23:16,970 --> 00:23:19,130 within that system that cannot be proven using 515 00:23:19,130 --> 00:23:22,630 the system's own rules. There are inherent internal 516 00:23:22,630 --> 00:23:25,549 limitations to formal consistency and completeness. 517 00:23:25,730 --> 00:23:28,410 So no system can perfectly capture all truths 518 00:23:28,410 --> 00:23:31,369 about itself. It shattered the dream of a perfect, 519 00:23:31,470 --> 00:23:34,410 all -encompassing mathematical logic. Precisely. 520 00:23:34,660 --> 00:23:37,980 Then second, he points to microphysics, particularly 521 00:23:37,980 --> 00:23:40,259 the implications of Heisenberg's uncertainty 522 00:23:40,259 --> 00:23:42,700 principle. Right. The idea that you can't perfectly 523 00:23:42,700 --> 00:23:45,940 know both the position and momentum of a particle 524 00:23:45,940 --> 00:23:47,799 at the same time. And the broader implication 525 00:23:47,799 --> 00:23:50,960 Lyotard draws is that truth at fundamental levels 526 00:23:50,960 --> 00:23:54,220 isn't singular. It often resolves into a set 527 00:23:54,220 --> 00:23:57,420 of multiple incompatible statements. Which statement 528 00:23:57,420 --> 00:24:00,299 is true depends entirely on the framework, the 529 00:24:00,299 --> 00:24:02,779 scale, the choice of the observer or experimenter. 530 00:24:03,059 --> 00:24:06,019 There's no single objective viewpoint that captures 531 00:24:06,019 --> 00:24:08,480 the whole picture simultaneously. So reality 532 00:24:08,480 --> 00:24:11,319 itself is, in a sense, observer dependent at 533 00:24:11,319 --> 00:24:13,380 that level. Or at least our description of it 534 00:24:13,380 --> 00:24:15,579 is. And third, he looks at the emerging mathematics 535 00:24:15,579 --> 00:24:18,680 of chaos and instability. Things like Mandelbrot's 536 00:24:18,680 --> 00:24:21,640 fractals and Rene Tom's catastrophe theory. What 537 00:24:21,640 --> 00:24:24,559 do those show? They focus precisely on the things 538 00:24:24,559 --> 00:24:28,720 stable systems ignore. Irregularities, discontinuities, 539 00:24:28,720 --> 00:24:31,279 sudden shifts, complex patterns arising from 540 00:24:31,279 --> 00:24:33,779 simple rules. Fractals show infinite complexity 541 00:24:33,779 --> 00:24:36,900 hidden in simple equations. Catastrophe theory 542 00:24:36,900 --> 00:24:39,799 models abrupt changes, like how a dog's behavior 543 00:24:39,799 --> 00:24:42,099 can suddenly flip from friendly to aggressive 544 00:24:42,099 --> 00:24:45,039 due to smooth changes in underlying factors like 545 00:24:45,039 --> 00:24:47,740 fear and rage. These aren't predictable with 546 00:24:47,740 --> 00:24:51,900 simple linear models. The cutting edge of science 547 00:24:51,900 --> 00:24:54,339 in his time was revealing a universe that's much 548 00:24:54,339 --> 00:24:57,579 more unstable, unpredictable, and complex than 549 00:24:57,579 --> 00:24:59,940 the neat, controllable system imagined by the 550 00:24:59,940 --> 00:25:02,500 technomanagers. Exactly. Postmodern science, 551 00:25:02,619 --> 00:25:05,480 by deliberately studying these limits, the undecidables, 552 00:25:05,500 --> 00:25:08,140 the paradoxes, the chaotic edges, actually serves 553 00:25:08,140 --> 00:25:10,579 as the counterexample to the ideology of total 554 00:25:10,579 --> 00:25:13,180 systemic control. Its real function isn't just 555 00:25:13,180 --> 00:25:15,220 confirming the known, but actively producing 556 00:25:15,220 --> 00:25:17,960 the unknown. Pushing boundaries. Exploring uncertainty. 557 00:25:18,299 --> 00:25:20,660 Yes. And this leads Lyotard to propose a radically 558 00:25:20,660 --> 00:25:22,359 different goal for intellectual and scientific 559 00:25:22,359 --> 00:25:24,619 progress, moving away from the ideal of consensus. 560 00:25:25,039 --> 00:25:27,779 Away from consensus. What replaces it? Paralogy. 561 00:25:27,980 --> 00:25:30,259 Paralogy. Okay, what does that mean? If homology 562 00:25:30,259 --> 00:25:33,279 is agreement, consensus among experts within 563 00:25:33,279 --> 00:25:36,200 the established rules, paralogy is about invention 564 00:25:36,200 --> 00:25:38,859 through dissent. It's about actively seeking 565 00:25:38,859 --> 00:25:41,500 out the paradox, the counterexample, the move 566 00:25:41,500 --> 00:25:44,190 that breaks the current rules. So genuine progress 567 00:25:44,190 --> 00:25:47,210 doesn't come from everyone agreeing. No, it comes 568 00:25:47,210 --> 00:25:49,549 from the descriptive move, the unexpected idea, 569 00:25:49,690 --> 00:25:52,789 the challenge to the status quo, and then, crucially, 570 00:25:52,930 --> 00:25:55,769 legitimizing that new move by proposing new rules 571 00:25:55,769 --> 00:25:58,910 for the language game. Progress requires constantly 572 00:25:58,910 --> 00:26:01,210 questioning and revising the rules themselves. 573 00:26:01,609 --> 00:26:03,829 That's a really powerful idea. It suggests that 574 00:26:03,829 --> 00:26:05,789 dissent isn't just tolerable, it's essential 575 00:26:05,789 --> 00:26:08,150 for knowledge to advance. It's the engine of 576 00:26:08,150 --> 00:26:11,019 innovation. Lyotard argues that the pursuit of 577 00:26:11,019 --> 00:26:13,779 universal consensus, an ideal championed by thinkers 578 00:26:13,779 --> 00:26:16,559 like Habermas, is actually insufficient. Worse, 579 00:26:16,640 --> 00:26:18,799 when that drive for consensus gets co -opted 580 00:26:18,799 --> 00:26:20,880 by the system seeking performativity. It just 581 00:26:20,880 --> 00:26:23,299 becomes a tool for control. Right. The system 582 00:26:23,299 --> 00:26:25,619 loves consensus because consensus is stable, 583 00:26:25,839 --> 00:26:29,160 predictable, manageable, efficient. Dissent is 584 00:26:29,160 --> 00:26:32,339 messy, unpredictable, inefficient. So the system, 585 00:26:32,420 --> 00:26:34,980 driven by performativity, will naturally try 586 00:26:34,980 --> 00:26:38,039 to suppress proology and enforce consensus. But 587 00:26:38,039 --> 00:26:41,140 isn't there a danger here? If we privilege dissent 588 00:26:41,140 --> 00:26:44,759 and paradox, doesn't that risk leading to fragmentation, 589 00:26:44,900 --> 00:26:48,740 chaos, maybe even the inability to agree on basic 590 00:26:48,740 --> 00:26:51,839 facts? How can a society function like that? 591 00:26:52,019 --> 00:26:54,759 That's the standard objection, the fear the system 592 00:26:54,759 --> 00:26:57,940 uses to justify demanding consensus. But Lyotard 593 00:26:57,940 --> 00:27:00,789 flips it. He argues that true political terror 594 00:27:00,789 --> 00:27:03,490 doesn't arise from dissent itself. It arises 595 00:27:03,490 --> 00:27:05,789 from the system's response to dissent. How does 596 00:27:05,789 --> 00:27:08,470 he define terror? Terror is the efficiency derived 597 00:27:08,470 --> 00:27:11,049 from the elimination or the threat of elimination 598 00:27:11,049 --> 00:27:13,609 of a partner outside the language game. Okay, 599 00:27:13,650 --> 00:27:16,109 break that down. It means the system exerts terror 600 00:27:16,109 --> 00:27:18,710 when it says, play by our rules, fit into our 601 00:27:18,710 --> 00:27:21,390 categories, be measurable by our metrics, or 602 00:27:21,390 --> 00:27:23,630 you will be silenced, ignored, defended, eliminated. 603 00:27:24,130 --> 00:27:27,150 It's the logic of Adapt your goals to our ends 604 00:27:27,150 --> 00:27:30,109 or else. The ultimate threat is erasure from 605 00:27:30,109 --> 00:27:32,309 the game. The threat faced by any knowledge, 606 00:27:32,410 --> 00:27:34,950 any person, any project that can't demonstrate 607 00:27:34,950 --> 00:27:36,990 its immediate efficiency or translate itself 608 00:27:36,990 --> 00:27:39,920 into the system's required data format. Exactly. 609 00:27:40,119 --> 00:27:42,839 But Lyotard finds a source of resistance, or 610 00:27:42,839 --> 00:27:44,960 at least complexity, in the actual nature of 611 00:27:44,960 --> 00:27:47,980 society. He doesn't see society as a unified 612 00:27:47,980 --> 00:27:51,119 system. He sees the social bond, the social fabric, 613 00:27:51,180 --> 00:27:54,500 as this incredibly complex, messy, heteromorphic 614 00:27:54,500 --> 00:27:57,299 texture. Heteromorphic, meaning? Made up of many 615 00:27:57,299 --> 00:28:00,420 different forms. It's a vast network of countless 616 00:28:00,420 --> 00:28:03,000 overlapping, intersecting, often conflicting 617 00:28:03,000 --> 00:28:06,220 language games, scientific, narrative, ethical, 618 00:28:06,400 --> 00:28:09,309 aesthetic, technical, political, and so on. Each 619 00:28:09,309 --> 00:28:12,430 game has its own rules, its own criteria for 620 00:28:12,430 --> 00:28:14,690 legitimacy. And the crucial point is that you 621 00:28:14,690 --> 00:28:16,930 can't judge one game by the rules of another. 622 00:28:17,210 --> 00:28:19,329 Precisely. You can't use scientific criteria 623 00:28:19,329 --> 00:28:21,569 to judge the validity of a poem or aesthetic 624 00:28:21,569 --> 00:28:24,170 criteria to judge a legal ruling. These games 625 00:28:24,170 --> 00:28:26,250 are fundamentally incommensurable. There's no 626 00:28:26,250 --> 00:28:28,369 single master language, no metanarrative that 627 00:28:28,369 --> 00:28:30,990 can encompass and regulate them all. So if society 628 00:28:30,990 --> 00:28:33,710 is this patchwork of incommensurable language 629 00:28:33,710 --> 00:28:37,019 games, what does that imply for justice? It means 630 00:28:37,019 --> 00:28:40,480 that a just society must respect this heterogeneity. 631 00:28:40,619 --> 00:28:43,279 It must acknowledge the irreducible differences 632 00:28:43,279 --> 00:28:46,480 between these ways of speaking, knowing and valuing. 633 00:28:46,579 --> 00:28:49,180 The goal can't be to force everyone into one 634 00:28:49,180 --> 00:28:52,819 single game or one totalizing consensus. So justice 635 00:28:52,819 --> 00:28:55,599 isn't found in universal agreement. But in finding 636 00:28:55,599 --> 00:28:58,000 ways to navigate the disagreements, the differences, 637 00:28:58,240 --> 00:29:01,880 the dissents without resorting to terror. Leotard 638 00:29:01,880 --> 00:29:04,259 suggests the path forward is towards a practice 639 00:29:04,259 --> 00:29:06,720 of justice fundamentally linked not to consensus, 640 00:29:06,960 --> 00:29:10,319 but to dissent. Respecting the paralogical move, 641 00:29:10,519 --> 00:29:12,640 the minority voice, the game that doesn't fit. 642 00:29:12,759 --> 00:29:14,859 Which brings us right back to technology, to 643 00:29:14,859 --> 00:29:17,420 informatics, to AI. It sits at this critical 644 00:29:17,420 --> 00:29:20,160 crossroad. It absolutely does. Informatics, this 645 00:29:20,160 --> 00:29:22,279 whole infrastructure of data, algorithms, AI. 646 00:29:23,220 --> 00:29:25,400 potentially the dream instrument for enforcing 647 00:29:25,400 --> 00:29:27,819 total control, for maximizing performativity, 648 00:29:28,019 --> 00:29:30,980 for realizing that systemic terror of be efficient 649 00:29:30,980 --> 00:29:33,599 or disappear. That's the dystopian path. What's 650 00:29:33,599 --> 00:29:35,799 the alternative? The alternative path, the one 651 00:29:35,799 --> 00:29:38,779 aligned with justice and paralogy, is where informatics 652 00:29:38,779 --> 00:29:41,519 serves dissent, where it empowers different groups, 653 00:29:41,640 --> 00:29:44,259 provides access to information, facilitates discussion, 654 00:29:44,680 --> 00:29:46,799 enables challenges to the dominant narratives. 655 00:29:46,900 --> 00:29:49,940 The technology itself might be neutral. But how 656 00:29:49,940 --> 00:29:52,910 we choose to deploy it, who controls it? And 657 00:29:52,910 --> 00:29:55,289 who has access that determines everything? It 658 00:29:55,289 --> 00:29:57,190 dictates whether we build a system of control 659 00:29:57,190 --> 00:30:00,710 or a platform for liberation. Hashtag tag outro. 660 00:30:01,069 --> 00:30:04,549 Well, this journey through Lyotard has been incredibly 661 00:30:04,549 --> 00:30:07,150 illuminating, trying to connect his thinking 662 00:30:07,150 --> 00:30:09,950 from 1979 to everything happening right now in 663 00:30:09,950 --> 00:30:12,970 2024. It feels like we've seen these major shifts 664 00:30:12,970 --> 00:30:15,789 crystallized. Yeah. First, that fundamental loss 665 00:30:15,789 --> 00:30:18,210 of faith in the big overarching story is the 666 00:30:18,210 --> 00:30:20,630 narratives of progress and emancipation. They 667 00:30:20,630 --> 00:30:22,750 just don't hold water anymore. Second, the rise 668 00:30:22,750 --> 00:30:25,349 of performativity as the dominant logic. Knowledge 669 00:30:25,349 --> 00:30:27,789 becomes a commodity measured purely by its efficiency, 670 00:30:27,990 --> 00:30:30,430 its usefulness to the system, increasingly processed 671 00:30:30,430 --> 00:30:33,309 as quantifiable data. And third, that deep crisis 672 00:30:33,309 --> 00:30:36,400 of truth itself. We're grappling with Nietzsche's 673 00:30:36,400 --> 00:30:38,519 insight that maybe we're just operating with 674 00:30:38,519 --> 00:30:41,160 worn -out metaphors, and Lyotard's showing how 675 00:30:41,160 --> 00:30:43,579 science's own foundations are maybe less solid 676 00:30:43,579 --> 00:30:45,980 than we thought, leading to the crucial alternative 677 00:30:45,980 --> 00:30:50,599 he proposes, paralogy. The idea that real progress, 678 00:30:50,759 --> 00:30:53,299 both in knowledge and maybe in justice, comes 679 00:30:53,299 --> 00:30:55,940 from dissent, from challenging the rules, not 680 00:30:55,940 --> 00:30:58,779 from seeking comfortable consensus. It's about 681 00:30:58,779 --> 00:31:02,079 embracing the unknown, the unexpected move, as 682 00:31:02,079 --> 00:31:04,519 the only path that doesn't inevitably lead back 683 00:31:04,519 --> 00:31:07,099 to that systemic terror of enforced conformity. 684 00:31:07,279 --> 00:31:10,000 So thinking about you, our listener, living in 685 00:31:10,000 --> 00:31:12,880 this world saturated with AI, with systems designed 686 00:31:12,880 --> 00:31:15,299 to optimize, predict, and often control based 687 00:31:15,299 --> 00:31:18,200 on efficiency metrics. What's the takeaway? What's 688 00:31:18,200 --> 00:31:20,000 the practical implication of Lyotard's thought? 689 00:31:20,200 --> 00:31:22,519 He offers a surprisingly direct, almost simple 690 00:31:22,519 --> 00:31:24,819 principle for steering technology away from the 691 00:31:24,819 --> 00:31:27,480 path of terror. It's about access. Access to 692 00:31:27,480 --> 00:31:30,140 what? The public must have free access to memory 693 00:31:30,140 --> 00:31:32,500 and data banks. Free access to the information, 694 00:31:32,740 --> 00:31:35,079 to the data that fuels the algorithms that informs 695 00:31:35,079 --> 00:31:38,619 the decisions. Yes. Lyotard argued that if everyone 696 00:31:38,619 --> 00:31:41,589 can see and use the data, If information isn't 697 00:31:41,589 --> 00:31:44,470 hoarded as a tool of power, it changes the nature 698 00:31:44,470 --> 00:31:47,170 of the language games. They become non -zero 699 00:31:47,170 --> 00:31:49,849 -sum games. Non -zero -sum, meaning? Meaning 700 00:31:49,849 --> 00:31:51,950 that one person gaining knowledge doesn't mean 701 00:31:51,950 --> 00:31:54,509 another person loses it. The stakes information 702 00:31:54,509 --> 00:31:57,950 knowledge are potentially infinite and inexhaustible. 703 00:31:58,190 --> 00:32:00,630 Freeing access allows knowledge to circulate, 704 00:32:00,630 --> 00:32:02,769 to be combined in new ways, to spark more ideas, 705 00:32:02,930 --> 00:32:05,769 more connections, more paralogy. It prevents 706 00:32:05,769 --> 00:32:08,109 knowledge from being solely a weapon of the powerful. 707 00:32:08,450 --> 00:32:11,049 So the provocative thought Lytard leaves us with, 708 00:32:11,109 --> 00:32:12,829 the critical question for you navigating the 709 00:32:12,829 --> 00:32:15,569 age of AI, is really this. In our incredibly 710 00:32:15,569 --> 00:32:18,049 data -rich, informatized world, what kind of 711 00:32:18,049 --> 00:32:20,589 society are we actually building? Are we prioritizing 712 00:32:20,589 --> 00:32:23,109 a policy driven purely by power, efficiency, 713 00:32:23,369 --> 00:32:26,190 and control? Or are we trying to build a society 714 00:32:26,190 --> 00:32:28,710 where the quest for justice, for fairness, and 715 00:32:28,710 --> 00:32:30,549 that equally important quest for the unknown, 716 00:32:30,730 --> 00:32:33,710 for dissent, for the truly new idea where those 717 00:32:33,710 --> 00:32:36,700 desires are given equal weight and respect? Finding 718 00:32:36,700 --> 00:32:39,039 that balance, Lyotard suggests, through radical 719 00:32:39,039 --> 00:32:41,220 transparency and a genuine commitment to hearing 720 00:32:41,220 --> 00:32:43,299 dissent, might be the only way to keep liberty 721 00:32:43,299 --> 00:32:45,380 alive in an age obsessed with the algorithm.