- The work of Jean Francois Lyotard has often been interpreted as the philosophical justification for a certain

concept of postmodernismnamely, the idea that science and culture provide competing narratives for
understanding realityyet such an interpretation fails to understand the function that the techno-scientific
system is supposed to perform in computerized societies, or the manner in which the diffusion of new
technologies alters the cultural infrastructure of the life-world.
- there is nevertheless an acceptance that the future of humanity WILL BE DETERMINED BY ITS CAPACITY TO NEGOTIATE a
more creative, symbiotic relationship with these technologies. this may be negative or positive or both - It is for this reason
that he turns to the saving power of art to counter the dehumanizing effects of technology, for he suggests that the
invention of new language games and practical techniques remains dependent upon the creative impulse that motivates the
production of artworks.3

- in the sense that the critique of scientific discourse in The Postmodern
Condition must now be accepted as an adequate description of the social function of the knowledge-system in computerized
or information societies.

- the purpose of this paper is to investigate the performative manner in which
human subjects are directly socialized by the invention and use of new technologies.

- if technologies of communication are understood as the medium in which the structure of the life-world is reproduced, then
the dialectic of science and technology can no longer be simply understood as a form of instrumental rationality, but rather as
a productive force that supplies the media of social interaction in computerized societies. technologies of communication
(gadgets and technology itself) will cease to be mere instruments/tools and will instead become productive forces in
COMPUTERIZED societies

- Rather than seeking to formulate Lyotards own position on the postmodern condition or the inhuman (means that this
paper wont further AFFIRM/BACKUP lyotards own position/view on his postmodern condition but rather..) this paper will
attempt to extend the description of the techno-scientific-industrial complex to the point at which the scientific knowledge
embodied in technology begins to transform the habits of users and the cultural
infrastructure of the lifeworld. take note: techno-scientific-industrial complex transform/change the HABITS of PEOPLE
WHO USE TECHNOLOGY, and also the culture infrastructure of the world.

----------------------

In order to advance TECHNOLOGY,
You need SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE,
Therefore, technology and scientific knowledge are inseparable(cant be separated).
The current INDUSTRIAL and CULTURAL situation around you SHAPES you,
Therefore, when technology (fueled by scientific knowledge) starts to influence the industrial/cultural situation around you, it
will also start to shape you.

*So sabi kanina, postmodernism is the idea that science and culture provide competing narratives for
understanding reality..
(narratives basehan kung paano mo iintindihin ang isang bagay)

SCIENCE vs CULTURE in UNDERSTANDING REALITY




But this interpretation fails to understand that the fusion of technology and science in computerized societies (as mentioned
above) ALREADY ALTERS the industrial and cultural infrastructure of reality/world.


-----------------------



- I shall use the term posthuman condition to describe the cultural effects of the expansion of science and technology in
computerized societies. By focusing upon the diffusion of information and communication technologies (ICTs) through the
market-place,

- I would like to suggest that the privatization of the knowledge use to construct networks of communication leads paradoxically
to an increase in the possibilities of public communication.
Explanation: Although users lack the know-why to build or program the
new technologies of distance communication, they nevertheless possess the know-how to establish a line of
communication. Although the actor may not know why the tool works, i.e., he lacks the
theoretical knowledge to design the tool, he nevertheless knows how it works, and the repeated use of such
tools modifies the capacities and habits of the user. As we have seen, the distribution of practical tools in the
market-place is one of the driving forces of scientific research in CAPITALIST SOCIETIES, for the diffusion of practical
tools generates surplus-value that can be subsequently re-directed into scientific research.

----------------

-Knowledge finds its validity in a practical subjecthumanity.

- It is assumed that the laws it makes for itself are just, not because they conform to some outside
nature, but because the legislators are, constitutionally, the very citizens who are subject to the laws. As a result,
the legislators willthe desire that the laws be justwill always coincide with the will of the citizen, who
desires the law and will therefore obey it.

-Citing Habermas historical study of The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Lyotard suggests that the
scientific community retains the power to criticize the instrumentalization of knowledge by the state, for as he
puts it, this type of legitimation grants them the authority, as practical human beings, to refuse their scholarly
support to a political power they judge to be unjust.

-In fact, when it comes to defining the essence
of humanity, Lyotard argues that it is the socializing force of language that TRANSFORMS the first nature of the
child into the second nature of the adult.

Semi-CONCLUSION: (of this paper)

-The increasing specialization, technicization and professionalization of science
is creating the infrastructure of a global communications network that is both increasing the privatization of
scientific knowledge and the possibilities of public communication.