Part 1.

In 1979, Jean-Francois Lyotard published a book called The Postmodern Condition, as a refutation of the modernist school of thought and the concept of “totalizing meta-narratives,” or broad overarching theoretical explanatory frameworks. The problem, as he saw it, was that the process of constructing broad explanatory theories necessarily diminishes the potential perceived veracity of any other possible explanation. The perception of truth ceases the pursuit of such, and thus is necessarily exclusionary of other perspectives. This penchant for exclusionary perspective is the true danger in Lyotard’s mind, the “terror” of the “silencing of the differend.” The differend in this context, is the imaginary space of ideas that are incommunicable between two parties because of a fundamental adversarial view/stance/perception or disagreement. Thus the silencing of the differend is the ascension of a singular “Truth” to the detriment of other potentially mitigating “truths”. It is the subjugation of individual truth by the overarching objective prevailing narrative.

Wittgenstein, and later Lyotard, offered the concept of language games, as a description of our present discourse. I would argue that the emergence of the memetic token is one type of a crypto-systemic response to the silencing of the differend. The rage against the machine, as it were. Each token is a crypto-linguistic archetype within an associated meta-language game being played, each transaction a statement within the conversation, the total of which yields a generative synthesis, or consensus, that we know as our shared reality.

Most “players” of the game will be unaware of this as the operative state of nature. So often the games play out illogically, making outcomes usually uncertain, and many times unknowable. Therefore it is the responsibility of those that can identify either the games or languages in play, to disseminate that knowledge as widely, freely, and rapidly as possible. To inform. To share. To edify. Because it’s the right thing to do, because virtue is its own reward.

This would represent a novel language game form. an informed and elevated language game, an enlightened collective conversation. Outcomes of such an improved efficiency are not knowable, but could serve to mitigate the potential of suboptimal narratives producing undesirable effects in markets, as in Shiller’s “Narrative Economics.”

Lyotard describes the current truth of our shared state as paralogy, a plurality of views and voices, none of which can claim supremacy over any other. This resistance to legitimation is a desirable effect, in Lyotard’s mind, as it defends the differend, the voice of the minority, from the oppressing nature of superseding Truth. But this also means there can be no unifying force, no sufficiently informed description of the phenomenon, like the assemblage of words presented here. This necessitated lack of common understanding, and therefore rational discourse, is what has been emphasized as the primary failing of Lyotard’s theories.

I contend that this eventual, seemingly necessary and logical disregard for Lyotard, is a mistake, but was arrived at honestly enough. There simply did not exist a reasonably exemplary instantiation of such cybernetic system until the birth of web3. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that these concepts could be identified and applied to a rapidly emerging and evolving phenomenon like the third internet, with its subjective, hyperlocalized contexts that determine the shape and substance of individual conversations within each chain, ecosystem, protocol, application, community etc.

Meaning, if only transitory, can be discerned for its localized purpose, and reflected for aggregation by the broader market. The deeper the interpreted meaning, the more readily its implied wisdom can be applied and absorbed. In this spirit, listen deeply to your conversations with newly attuned attention and intention. Discern what you may, and share your insights. Contribute to the dialogue and elevate the discourse. This is only the beginning of our game.

to be continued.

Part 1.

In 1979, Jean-Francois Lyotard published a book called The Postmodern Condition, as a refutation of the modernist school of thought and the concept of “totalizing meta-narratives,” or broad overarching theoretical explanatory frameworks. The problem, as he saw it, was that the process of constructing broad explanatory theories necessarily diminishes the potential perceived veracity of any other possible explanation. The perception of truth ceases the pursuit of such, and thus is necessarily exclusionary of other perspectives. This penchant for exclusionary perspective is the true danger in Lyotard’s mind, the “terror” of the “silencing of the differend.” The differend in this context, is the imaginary space of ideas that are incommunicable between two parties because of a fundamental adversarial view/stance/perception or disagreement. Thus the silencing of the differend is the ascension of a singular “Truth” to the detriment of other potentially mitigating “truths”. It is the subjugation of individual truth by the overarching objective prevailing narrative.

Wittgenstein, and later Lyotard, offered the concept of language games, as a description of our present discourse. I would argue that the emergence of the memetic token is one type of a crypto-systemic response to the silencing of the differend. The rage against the machine, as it were. Each token is a crypto-linguistic archetype within an associated meta-language game being played, each transaction a statement within the conversation, the total of which yields a generative synthesis, or consensus, that we know as our shared reality.

Most “players” of the game will be unaware of this as the operative state of nature. So often the games play out illogically, making outcomes usually uncertain, and many times unknowable. Therefore it is the responsibility of those that can identify either the games or languages in play, to disseminate that knowledge as widely, freely, and rapidly as possible. To inform. To share. To edify. Because it’s the right thing to do, because virtue is its own reward.

This would represent a novel language game form. an informed and elevated language game, an enlightened collective conversation. Outcomes of such an improved efficiency are not knowable, but could serve to mitigate the potential of suboptimal narratives producing undesirable effects in markets, as in Shiller’s “Narrative Economics.”

Lyotard describes the current truth of our shared state as paralogy, a plurality of views and voices, none of which can claim supremacy over any other. This resistance to legitimation is a desirable effect, in Lyotard’s mind, as it defends the differend, the voice of the minority, from the oppressing nature of superseding Truth. But this also means there can be no unifying force, no sufficiently informed description of the phenomenon, like the assemblage of words presented here. This necessitated lack of common understanding, and therefore rational discourse, is what has been emphasized as the primary failing of Lyotard’s theories.

I contend that this eventual, seemingly necessary and logical disregard for Lyotard, is a mistake, but was arrived at honestly enough. There simply did not exist a reasonably exemplary instantiation of such cybernetic system until the birth of web3. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that these concepts could be identified and applied to a rapidly emerging and evolving phenomenon like the third internet, with its subjective, hyperlocalized contexts that determine the shape and substance of individual conversations within each chain, ecosystem, protocol, application, community etc.

Meaning, if only transitory, can be discerned for its localized purpose, and reflected for aggregation by the broader market. The deeper the interpreted meaning, the more readily its implied wisdom can be applied and absorbed. In this spirit, listen deeply to your conversations with newly attuned attention and intention. Discern what you may, and share your insights. Contribute to the dialogue and elevate the discourse. This is only the beginning of our game.

to be continued.