Anamnesis and  
Re-Orientation:  
A Discourse on  
Matter and Time 
Yuk Hui 
The whole question is this: is the passage 
(anamnesis) possible, will it be possible with, 
or allowed by, the new mode of inscription and 
memoration [mémoration] that characterizes the 
new technologies? Do they not impose syntheses, 
and syntheses conceived still more intimately in 
the soul than any earlier technology has done?1
Lyotard’s­Les Immatériaux­can­be­read­as­a­profound­discourse­on­matter­and­
time,­one­that­aims­to­go­beyond­the­simple­correlation­between­technics­
and­memory,­and­toward­the­anamnesis­of­the­unknown­–­or­better,­as­I­will­
explain­below,­the­re-orientation­of­the­Occident.­Plato­memorably­described­
matter­as­the­foster-mother­in­the­Timaeus,­where­he­proposes­a­third­genre­
of­being­in­addition­to­the­two­he­had­discussed­previously­–­an­eternal­
intelligible­pattern­and­the­imitation­of­such­pattern.­The­third­genre,­explains­
Plato,­“is­the­receptacle,­and­in­a­manner­the­foster-mother,­of­all­generation”.2 
Matter­is­the­receptacle,­but­also­the­medium­of­inscription.­Hence­in­Lyotard’s­
1­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Logos­and­Techne,­or­Telegraphy”,­in­The Inhuman: Reflections on 
Time,­trans.­Geoffrey­Bennington­and­Rachel­Bowlby­(Cambridge:­Polity­Press,­1991),­p.­
57.
2­ Plato,­Timaeus,­trans.­Benjamin­Jowett,­classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html;­translation­
modified.
180 30 Years after Les Immatériaux
system­of­“mat-”­we­find­maternity.3­Time­stands­for­multiple­senses:­memory,­
history,­repetition,­anamnesis.­The­new­theoretical­rigour­that­Lyotard­wanted­
to show throughout Les Immatériaux­and­beyond­–­especially­as­expressed­
in his essay collection The Inhuman, published­after­the­exhibition­–­dem-
onstrates­a­philosophical­effort­to­transcend­the­totality­anticipated­by­rapid­
technological­development,­seeking­a­new­mode­of­determination­of­matter­
and­indetermination­of­thought.­Les Immateriaux­serves­as­a­critique­of­the­
Occidental­tradition­of­philosophising.­One­can­identify­both­an­affinity­to­
Heidegger­yet­also­a­desire­to­take­a­distance­from­him,­since­the­question­of­
the­Other­stands­at­the­centre­of­Lyotard’s­inquiry.­
This­article­aims­to­elaborate­on­Lyotard’s­anamnesis­of­the­Other,­and­to­
introduce­another­question­on­rethinking­the­potential­of­new­technologies.­I­
suggest­that­these­two­questions­are­closely­related­to­each­other,­and­in­the­
rest­of­the­article­I­want­to­show­how.­
The­Other­stands­for­an­addressee­and­an­addresser,­as­well­as­the­condition­
of a différend,­which­turns­against­itself­and­produces­the­différend as an 
opening­of­questions.­Michel­Olivier­has­rightly­pointed­out­that­the­différend 
is­not­contingent­–­rather,­it­is­already­within­the­language.­If­we­understand­
the différend­here­as­the­conflict­between­the­different­rules­of­two­parties,­
how­then­can­we­think­about­the­question­of­translation?­To­what­extent­can­
a translator be loyal to the différend?­This­will­depend­on­another­question:­
How­sensitive­is­the­translator­toward­the­différend?­This­Other­stands­as­the­
interlocutor­of­the­anamnesis­that­Lyotard­endeavoured­to­propose.­To­ask­
who­this­Other­is,­we­first­have­to­answer­the­question:­Is­the­postmodern­
merely­a­European­project?­And­if­it­is­a­European­project,­then­would­such­a­
discourse­be­applicable­to­non-European­cultures?­
The Postmodern – Is it a European Project?
This­question­is­ambivalent.­Even­though­the­debates­were­contextualised­
within­European­culture,­including­Lyotard’s­critique­of­Habermas’s­insistence­
on­the­Enlightenment­project,­its­influence­went­far­beyond­Europe.­The­
influence­of­his­concept­of­the­postmodern­–­through­global­technological­
expansion,­including­the­translation,­publication­and­circulation­of­Lyotard’s­
The Postmodern Condition­–­has­already­betrayed­its­intention­as­a­European­
project.­On­the­occasion­of­the­exhibition,­Lyotard­organized­a­teleconference­
to­show­how­time­and­space­are­traversed­by­the­new­material­(later­we­will­
see that it is the immaterial),­with­representatives­from­Japan­and­Brazil,­as­
well­as­Canada,­the­USA,­and­France.­One­can­postulate­that­Lyotard­already­
had­on­his­mind­the­technological­globalisation­which­is­the­reason­why­
3­ Lyotard­analyses­the­etymological­root­mât­in­terms­of­referent­(matière),­hardware­
(matériel),­support­(matériau),­matrix­(matrice),­maternity­(maternité).
Anamnesis and Re-orientation 181
postmodern­discourse­is­no­longer­limited­to­Europe­but­extends­around­the­
globe.­If­this­is­the­case,­then­we­have­to­consider:­What­does­it­mean­when­
countries­adopt­the­postmodern­without­having­been­modern,­as­for­example­
in­the­case­of­China,­which­some­French­thinkers­consider­to­be­a­country­of­
modernisation­but­not­modernity?­After­the­postmodern­of­Lyotard,­and­fur-
ther­through­Frederic­Jameson,­we­can­indeed­see­an­intensive­discourse­on­
the­postmodern­question­in­China.­However,­in­China­at­least,­these­debates­
have­not­gone­beyond­aesthetics­and­narrations­in­literature.­It­seems­to­me­
that,­besides­its­aesthetic­value,­which­presented­a­sort­of­Zeitgeist,­the­post-
modern­question­has­still­not­really­been­tackled,­and­that­further­inquiries­
are­needed.
Lyotard­often­referred­the­concept­of­the­Other­(or­one­of­these­Others)­
to­the­thirteenth-century­Japanese­Zen­master,­Dôgen,­as­a­reference­and­
mirror by which the différend­within­the­European­logos­can­be­reflected.­In­
fact,­Dôgen­was­probably­one­of­the­key­inspirations­for­the­new­metaphysics­
which­Lyotard­spoke­of­during­the­preparation­of­the­Les Immatériaux,­in­order­
to­articulate­a­new­relation­between­matter­and­time,­and­hence­anamnesis.­
The­question­of­matter­is­firstly­expressed­in­the­original­title­of­the­exhibition­
project­itself,­which­was­Les nouveaux matériaux et la creation­[New­Materials­
and­Creation].­The­“immatériaux”­are­not­immaterial,­but­rather­a­new­form­of­
material­brought­about­by­telecommunication­technologies.­The­new­form­of­
material­turned­against­the­modern­project­which­produced­it­and­created­a­
rupture­with­it.­It­may­not­be­appropriate­to­say­that­the­postmodern­was­an­
epochal­change­that­suddenly­broke­away­from­the­modern;­rather,­the­pos-
sibility­of­the­postmodern­was­always­already­there­within­modern­thought,­
as­Lyotard­himself­wrote­in­The Postmodern Condition:­“A­work­can­become­
modern­only­if­it­is­firstly­postmodern,­in­the­current­state,­and­this­state­is­
constant.”4­For­example,­for­Lyotard,­Denis­Diderot’s­grand salon or Michel 
de­Montaigne’s­prose­are­already­postmodern.­The­changes­in­the­material­
condition­due­to­technoscientific­discoveries­and­inventions­have­amplified­
this­mode­of­thinking­and­narration.­Hence,­we­can­say­that­the­postmodern­
is­the­result­of­an­amplification,­and­the­theme­that­is­at­centre­of­Lyotard’s­
exhibition­is­both­material­and­figurative.
This­process­of­amplification­has­also­brought­about­structural­transfor-
mations­across­all­domains­concerning­knowledge.­In­this­new­material­con-
dition,­the­meaning­of­creation­has­significantly­changed.­Lyotard­prefers­to­
understand­the­relation­between­humans­and­things­not­as­creation,­in­the­
sense­of­a­subject­creating­its­world,­“for­the­purposes­of­the­provisions­of­this­
4­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­The Postmodern Condition,­trans.­by­Geoffrey­Bennington­and­
Brian­Massumi­(Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press),­p.­79.
182 30 Years after Les Immatériaux
world­and­enjoyment­of­this­world,­enjoyment­of­knowledge,­power”.5 On the 
contrary,­this­new­materiality­has­put­an­end­to­this­anthropocentrism.6­For­
this­reason,­Lyotard­preferred­to­conceptualise­the­new­matter­as­interaction 
rather­than­creation.­This,­I­suspect,­is­also­one­of­the­reasons­why­the­word­
“creation”­was­removed­from­the­exhibition­title.­This­reconceptualisation­
demands­a­new­metaphysics­which­reconfigures­the­sense­of­being,­and­
fundamentally­transforms­the­concept­of­human­existence.­Lyotard­says:
If­you­say­creation,­that­means­that­you­prohibit­the­other­metaphysics­
that­I­evoked­earlier:­a­metaphysics­in­which,­precisely,­man­is­not­a­sub-
ject­facing­the­world­of­objects,­but­only­–­and­this­“only”­seems­to­me­to­
be­very­important­–­only­a­sort­of­synapse,­a­sort­of­interactive­clicking­
together­of­the­complicated­interface­between­fields­wherein­flow­the­
elements­of­particles­via­channels­of­waves.7 
What­does­Lyotard­mean­by­“interaction”­here?­He­does­not­mean­that­the­
human­interacts­with­objects­rather­than­creating­them­like­being­in­a­dia-
logue­–­Lyotard­went­much­further;­interaction­signifies­an­ontology­of­the­
transmission­of­a­message­without­end,­in­which­“man­himself­is­not­the­origin­
of­messages,­but­sometimes­the­receiver,­sometimes­the­referent,­sometimes­
a­code,­sometimes­a­support­for­the­message;­and­where­sometimes­he­
himself­is­the­message.­This­plasticity­of­humans­means­that­this­structure­
of­communication­today­seems­like­something­upon­which­identities­can­no­
longer­be­fixed.”8­This­metaphysics­cannot­be­found­in­the­thought­of­Des-
cartes,­said­Lyotard,­but­it­would­be­possible­to­think­through­Spinoza,­or­
Zen­Buddhism­–­though­not,­he­added,­Zen­as­understood­in­California,­but­
rather­the­Zen­of­the­Chinese­tradition,­as­incarnated­by­a­great­Japanese­
philosopher­living­in­China,­who­is­called­…”.9­Even­though­the­name­is­missing­
in­this­report­(Après six mois de travail…),­we­will­see­later­that­it­is­Dôgen.
In Après six mois de travail…,­Lyotard­only­told­half­of­the­story­about­Dôgen,­
to­explain­the­conceptualisation­of­being­in­terms­of­interaction­instead­of­
creation.­Creation­is­the­question­that­was­posed­at­the­beginning­of­the­
European­tradition,­and­during­medieval­times;­creation­is­the­point­where­
Christian­theology­and­Aristotelian­metaphysics­merge,­which­in­turn­founds­
what­Heidegger­called­“ontotheology”.­Lyotard­told­the­second­half­of­the­
story­about­Dôgen­in­a­talk­invited­by­Bernard­Stiegler­on­the­occasion­of­a­
5­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­Après six mois de travail…,­1984,­Archive­du­Centre­Pompidou,­
translated­as­“After­Six­Months­of­Work­…",­in­this­volume,­p.­36­­(“à­des­fins­de­dis-
positions­de­ce­monde­et­de­jouissance­de­ce­monde,­jouissance­de­savoir,­de­pouvoir”).
6­ Ibid.
7­ Ibid.
8­ Ibid.,­p.­37.
9­ Ibid.
Anamnesis and Re-orientation 183
colloquium­at­IRCAM­of­the­Centre­Pompidou­in­1986,­later­published­as­“Logos 
and Techne, or Telegraphy”. 
However,­let­us­step­back­and­ask:­Why­is­the­question­of­anamnesis­so­
important­for­Lyotard,­and­how­does­it­relate­to­the­new­technologies­he­wit-
nessed­in­the­1980s?
On the Senses of Anamnesis
The­question­posed­by­Lyotard­that­was­quoted­at­the­beginning­of­this­article­
was­directed­to­Bernard­Stiegler,­the­philosopher­of­anamnesis.­Lyotard­was­
the­supervisor­of­Stiegler’s­master’s­degree­thesis­at­that­time,­and­thus­
understood­very­well­the­work­of­the­young­philosopher­who­later­dedicated­
three volumes of Technics and Time­to­anamnesis.­Although­there­is­no­record­
of­this­discussion,­it­seems­intriguing­that­the­question­has­still­not­yet­been­
answered­in­a­satisfactory­manner,­at­least­not­in­the­contemporary­literature­
that­I­can­find.­In­order­to­understand­the­complexity­of­Lyotard’s­question­
on­anamnesis,­and­our­ambition­to­understand­the­meaning­of­the­Les Imm-
matériaux­outside­of­the­European­context,­we­will­need­to­revisit­the­concept­
of­anamnesis­in­Plato,­Stiegler’s­take­on­Plato,­Freud,­and­Lyotard’s­take­on­
Freud.­
The Platonic Concept of Anamnesis
Anamnesis­plays­an­important­role­in­the­Platonic­system­of­knowledge,­
understood­as­the­path­towards­truth.­Plato’s­writing­on­this­role­of­anamnesis­
is­clearly­expressed­in­both­the­Phaedo­and­the­Meno,­where­he­formulated­the­
concept­as­a­response­to­the­challenge­from­the­Sophists.­Let­us­reformulate­
the­Sophists’­challenge­in­this­way:­If­you­know­what­virtue­is­(in­the­Meno),­or­
what­being­appropriate­is­(in­the­Phaedo),­then­you­don’t­really­need­to­pursue­
it,­since­it­is­already­in­you;­if­you­don’t­know­what­it­is,­then­you­won’t­be­able­
to­recognize­it­or­conduct­yourself­according­to­it.­This­is­a­paradox­which­
leads­to­the­conclusion­that­one­can­never­find­the­true­knowledge­or­the­
ultimate­good.­Plato­solved­this­paradox­by­saying:­one­does­in­fact­know­it,­
and­indeed­one­does­in­fact­know­it,­and­indeed­has­always­known­it.­The­soul­
is­immortal,­said­Plato,­but­in­each­incarnation,­the­soul­forgets­everything.­
However,­forgetting­doesn’t­mean­that­one­cannot­recognize­the­virtue­
that­one­is­after.­Forgetting­is­the­condition­of­recognizing,­and­recollection­
–­anamnesis­–­the­method.­The­relation­between­truth­and­anamnesis­is­
thus­established.­Socrates­and­Plato­are­not­teachers­in­the­sense­of­giving­
knowledge­to­students,­but­rather,­as­Plato­said,­spiritual­midwives­who­help­
the­students­to­recollect­what­has­been­forgotten.­Hence,­in­the­Meno, with 
the­help­of­Socrates,­the­slave-boy­learns­to­solve­some­geometrical­ques-
tions­despite­having­no­prior­knowledge­of­the­matter.­Recollection­is­not­
184 30 Years after Les Immatériaux
only­about­recollecting­a­certain­fact­or­principle,­but­rather­a­process­of­
recovering­the­wholeness­of­knowledge.­In­the­Meno­(81c-d),­Plato­stated:
Since­all­nature­is­akin­(συγγενής),­and­the­soul­has­learnt­all­things,­there­
is­nothing­to­prevent­her,­by­recollecting­one­single­thing,­recovering­all­
the­rest.10
One­can­notice­that­there­is­a­kind­of­logical­inference­in­Plato’s­concept­of­the­
anamnesis,­but­how­does­it­work?­One­interpretation­is­that­it­functions­on­
the­basis­of­the­Platonic­Idea,­like­a­sort­of­a priori concept which allows such 
an­inference­to­happen.11 This a priori,­however,­is­not­what­we­understand­in­
the­Kantian­sense­of­the­term.­The­Platonic­Idea­follows­rather­Parmenides’s­
the One,­in­which­thinking­(the­intellect)­and­being­find­their­unity.­However,­
Plato­detaches­the­Idea­from­the­particulars­through­his­concept­of­the­
chōrismós­,­or­separation.­This­separation­is­also­one­that­removes­the­Idea­
from­matter,­that­is­to­say­truth­from­any­material­condition.­This­concept­of­
separation­was­reproached­by­Aristotle,­since­the­Platonic­doctrine­disregards­
the­reality­of­the­particular.­Aristotle­wants­to­reintegrate­matter­into­his­doc-
trine­of­being.­The­Platonic­Idea­which­corresponds­to­the­Aristotelian­concept­
of­form­(eidos)­becomes­the­first­of­the­four­causalities­that­Aristotle­outlined­
in his Metaphysics­Book­V:­causa formalis,­causa materialis,­causa efficiens,­and­
causa finalis.
The­re-inscription­of­matter­becomes­an­important­philosophical­task­for­
the­tradition­of­European­philosophy,­including­in­modern­philosophy,­where­
we­find­attempts­to­unify­the­body­and­the­soul­in­the­doctrines­of­Des-
cartes,­Spinoza­and­Leibniz.­To­situate­anamnesis­in­our­discussion,­I­would­
like­to­refer­to­the­reading­of­Plato­by­Bernard­Stiegler.­Stiegler­has­decon-
structed­the­example­given­by­Plato­in­Meno,­since­Plato­has­forgotten­the­
tool­that­Socrates­used­to­demonstrate­these­geometrical­questions,­which­
was­drawing­on­the­sand.­For­Stiegler,­technics­constitutes­a­crucial­role­in­
the­concept­of­anamnesis,­for­anamnesis­is­not­possible­without­a­support­
that­is­outside­the­noetic­soul.­Stiegler­hence­proposes­a­retentional­system­
that­characterises­the­processes­of­anamnesis­through­a­reading­of­Hus-
serl’s­phenomenology­of­time-consciousness:­primary­retention­(impression,­
association),­secondary­retention­(memory,­recognition)­and­tertiary­retention­
(exteriorised­memory).­Within­this­system,­the­retentions­constitute­a­cycle­
of­mutual­determination,­meaning­that­the­tertiary­retentions­condition­the­
selection­of­the­primary­retention,­which­in­turn­conditions­the­recognition­
of­the­secondary­retention,­and­so­on.­Later,­I­will­show­how­this­reading­of­
technics­and­time,­as­a­path­towards­truth­(either­in­the­sense­of­the­Greek­
word­alētheia­or­in­contemporary­senses),­demonstrates­a­discrepancy­
10­ Reginald­Edgar­Allen,­“Anamnesis­in­Plato’s­Meno­and­Phaedo”,­The Review of Metaphysics,­
vol.­13,­no.­1­(Sept.­1959),­p.­167.
11­ Ibid.­I­will­argue­against­this­assertion.
Anamnesis and Re-orientation 185
between­the­philosophical­West­and­the­philosophical­East.­The­examination­
of­this­discrepancy­will­provide­us­with­a­new­perspective­from­which­to­look­
at­the­postmodern­turn.
The Freudian Concept of Anamnesis 
The­relations­between­matter­and­time,­according­to­Lyotard,­can­be­grasped­
in­three­different­temporal­syntheses:­those­of­habit,­remembrance­and­
anamnesis.­Habit­is­a­synthesis­that­expresses­itself­bodily.­Remembrance­
always­searches­for­a­narrative­with­an­origin,­or­a­beginning.­Anamnesis,­
for­Lyotard,­means­something­rather­different­and­must­be­carefully­dis-
tinguished­from­remembrance.­This­distinction­has­its­source­in­Freud,­
especially­his­1914­essay­Erinnern, Wiederholen und Durcharbeiten.­In­this­
essay­Freud­tried­to­show­that­there­are­two­techniques­of­analysis,­one­
through­hypnosis,­which­helps­the­patient­to­reconstruct­the­unconscious-
ness­in­a­simple­form­of­remembering­–­simple­in­the­sense­that­the­patient­
is­removed­from­the­present,­and­what­matters­is­the­earlier­situation.­Freud­
added­a­second­scenario­in­which­“no­memory­can­as­a­rule­be­recovered”.12 
This­occurs,­for­example,­with­some­experiences­of­childhood­which­we­
didn’t­understand­at­the­time,­but­which­disclose­themselves­subsequently.­
The­biggest­difference­between­the­technique­of­remembrance­in­hypnosis­
and­the­technique­of­uncovering­repetition­is­that­in­the­latter­the­patient­
“reproduces­it­not­as­a­memory­but­as­an­action;­he­repeats­it,­without,­of­
course,­knowing­that­he­is­repeating­it”.13­The­analyst’s­task­in­this­case­is­to­
help­the­patient­to­uncover­the­source­of­the­resistance.­However,­as­Freud­
identified,­there­are­two­difficulties­here:­the­first­is­that­the­patient­refuses­
to­think­there­is­a­problem,­that­is­to­say,­he­or­she­refuses­to­remember;­
the­second­is­that­novice­analysts­often­found­that,­even­after­revealing­this­
resistance­to­the­patient,­there­was­no­change.­At­this­point,­Freud­introduces­
the­third­term,­Durcharbeiten or “working-through”:
One must allow the patient time to become more conversant with this 
resistance­with­which­he­has­now­become­acquainted,­to­work through­it,­
to­overcome­it,­by­continuing,­in­defiance­of­it,­the­analytic­work­according­
to­the­fundamental­rule­of­analysis.14
In the lecture “Logos, Techne, or Telegraphy” (1986),­Lyotard­commented­
on­Stiegler’s­retentional­model­of­memory­by­referring­to­three­type­of­
memories:­namely,­bleaching­( frayage),­scanning­(balayage)­and­passing­(pas-
sage),­corresponding­respectively­to­habit,­remembrance­and­anamnesis.­
12­ Sigmund­Freud,­Remembering, Repeating, and Working-Through,­in­vol.­12­of­Standard­
Edition­(1950),­p.­149.
13­ Ibid.,­p.­150.
14­ Ibid.,­p.­155.
186 30 Years after Les Immatériaux
Lyotard­identifies­Freud’s­Durcharbeiten­with­the­third­type­of­synthesis­of­
time­–­anamnesis.­Lyotard’s­reading­of­Durcharbeiten­is,­as­we­will­see­below,­
quite­different­from­that­of­Freud.15­For­Lyotard,­this­anamnesis­has­two­
different­senses,­the­nuances­of­which­have­to­be­carefully­distinguished.­
The­first­sense­of­Durcharbeiten­takes­a­form­of­free­association:­as­Lyotard­
says,­the­passing­takes­more­energy­than­scanning­and­bleaching,­precisely­
because­it­doesn’t­have­rules.16­This­sense­is­taken­up­on­another­occasion,­in­
Le Postmoderne expliqué aux enfants,­where­he­understands­avant-gardism­as­
a­movement­highly­responsible­for­the­presuppositions­implied­in­modernity.­
The­work­of­the­modern­painters­from­Manet­to­Duchamp­or­Barnett­
Newman,­could­be­understood­in­terms­of­an­anamnesis­in­the­sense­of­
psychoanalytic therapeutics:
Just­as­the­patient­tries­to­elaborate­his­present­trouble­by­freely­
associating some apparently inconsistent elements with some past situ-
ation­–­allowing­them­to­uncover­hidden­meanings­in­their­lives­and­their­
behaviour­–­in­the­same­way­we­can­think­of­the­work­of­Cézanne,­Picasso,­
Delaunay,­Kandinsky,­Klee,­Mondrian,­Malevich,­and­finally­Duchamp­as­
a­working­through­(Durcharbeiten)­performed­by­modernity­on­its­own­
meaning.17
For­Lyotard,­these­artists,­including­the­avant-gardes,­didn’t­represent­a­rup-
ture­from­the­modern,­but­rather­an­anamnesis­of­the­modern.­Hence­post-
modern­art­is­a­liberation­from­rules­and­responsibility,­and­a­passing­beyond­
the­rules­of­inscription,­through­anamnesis.­What­is­more­interesting,­and­
seems­to­be­highly­puzzling­in­Lyotard’s­thought,­is­the­demand­for­something­
which­is­not­inscribed­and­hence­cannot­be­limited­by­the­rules­of­writing.­
This­origin­is­not­something­remembered,­and­indeed­it­is­a­memory­which­is­
not­inscribed,­but­cannot­be­forgotten.­One­example­is­Freud’s­notion­of­the­
experience­of­childhood­as­something­that­is­not­remembered­but­that­has­to­
be­worked­through.­Hence­Christopher­Fynsk­proposed­to­emphasize­the­role­
of­infancy­in­Lyotard’s­concept­of­anamnesis,­noting­that­Lyotard­“understood­
himself to be writing from­an­infancy­and­to­an­infancy”.18 It is not only that 
Lyotard­has­written­two­books,­one­from­infancy­(Lectures d’Enfance),­the­other 
to infancy­(Le Postmoderne expliqué aux enfants),­but­that­deeply­rooted­in­his­
15­ In­the­article­by­Scarfone­Dominique,­“À­quoi­œuvre­l’analyse?”,­Libres cahiers pour la 
psychanalyse­1/2004­(N°9),­109–123,­the­author­states­that­for­Freud­the­Durcharbeiten 
is­a­task­that­comes­back­to­the­patient­and­the­analyst­can­only­wait­to­let­things­
come­along;­for­Lyotard,­it­is­the­contrary,­meaning­that­it­is­the­“third­ear”­(term­taken­
from­Nietzsche,­Ohren hinter den Ohren)­of­the­analyst,­that­should­bring­forth­the­
Durcharbeiten,­p.­116.
16­ Lyotard,­“Logos­and­Techne,­or­Telegraphy”,­p.­57.
17­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­Postmodern explained: correspondence, 1982–1985,­trans.­Don­Barry­
(Sydney:­Power­Publications,­1993),­p.­79–80,­translation­modified.
18­ Christopher­Fynsk,­“Lyotard’s­Infancy”,­in­Jean-Francois Lyotard: Time and Judgment,­Yale 
French Studies,­No.­99,­(2001),­p.­48.
Anamnesis and Re-orientation 187
thought­is,­as­Fynsk­shows,­the­impulse­of­infancy­becoming­the­condition­of­
anamnesis,­and­hence­of­writing.­
Clear Mirror and the Negation of the Logos
I­have­no­objection­to­such­an­interpretation­of­Lyotard’s­anamnesis,­but­
I­would­like­to­complicate­it.­I­would­argue­that­anamnesis­is­present­in­
Lyotard’s­writings­at­once­as­a­technique­–­as­we­have­seen­above­–­but­
also­as­a­logic­–­as­I­will­now­elaborate.­In­the­text­that­we­have­started­to­
analyse,­in­the­section­on­anamnesis­in­which­Lyotard­dramatically­talks­
about­an­example­from­Dôgen,­Lyotard­uses­Dôgen­to­explain­what­he­means­
by­“passing”,­or­anamnesis.­Here­we­can­observe­a­nuance­that­I­proposed­
before,­concerning­the­use­of­the­word­anamnesis­as­Durcharbeiten.­As­Fynsk­
writes,­“I­believe­that­the­appeal­to­Dôgen,­here,­is­not­merely­an­instance­
of­exoticism,­however­effective­it­might­also­be­on­that­score.­It­is­rather­an­
implicit­acknowledgment­that­what­he­seeks­to­think­does­not­surrender­to­
the­concept­or­to­any­theoretical­exposition­–­that­if­there­is­a­passage­from­
infancy­to­thought,­it­is­not­established­by­the­concept”.­I­would­like­to­take­
this­reference­to­Dôgen­more­seriously­than­Fynsk­does;­indeed,­references­
to­Dôgen­do­not­only­appear­once­in­Lyotard’s­writings,­but­also­appear­in­
various­notes­and­interviews.­
I­want­to­propose­that­what­Lyotard­was­thinking­was­much­more­intriguing,­
and­even­something­more­uncanny,­than­Fynsk­describes.­I­call­this­logic­
the negation of logos.­The­word­“negation”­is­perhaps­not­correct,­or­doesn’t­
carry­the­right­sense.­The­negation­at­stake­here­is­not­a­total­negation­nor­
a­partial­probation­(e.g.­part,­intensity).­The­difference­between­privation­
and­negation­has­to­be­clarified­first.­Let­us­paraphrase­Heidegger’s­funny­
example­of­skiing­to­clarify­the­difference­between­privation­and­negation­as­
understood­by­the­Greeks.19­When­I­am­asked­if­I­have­time­for­skiing,­I­reply,­
“no,­I­don’t­have­time”.­In­fact,­I­do­have­time,­but­I­don’t­have­time­for­you.­
The­negation­that­I­want­to­demonstrate­here­is­not­that­being­is­negated­in­
taking­a­reverse­direction,­but­rather­that­it­is­“privated”­in­such­a­way­that­
the­direction­is­diverted.­The­first­case­is­exemplified­in­the­movement­from­
modern­to­postmodern.­The­postmodern­is­the­self-negation­of­the­modern.­It­
is­not­that,­at­a­certain­moment­of­modernity,­something­happened,­and­then­
we­have­the­postmodern.­It­means­rather­that,­at­some­moment­of­its­devel-
opment,­the­logic­of­modernity­turned­against­itself­and­changed­its­direction.­
This­negation­as­privation­coming­out­of­internal­development­is­a­neologism­
19­ Martin­Heidegger,­Zollikon Seminars: Protocols, Conversations, Letters,­ed.­Medard­Boss­
(Illinois:­Northwestern­University­Press,­2001),­p.­46–47.­Heidegger­writes:­“It­took­Greek­
thinkers­two­hundred­years­to­discover­the­idea­of­privation.­Only­Plato­discovered­this­
negation­as­privation­and­discussed­it­in­his­dialogue­The Sophist.”­
188 30 Years after Les Immatériaux
presented­by­Lyotard­in­his­introduction­to­Les Immatériaux.20 The reference 
to­Dôgen­seeks­to­demonstrate­the­same­logic,­but­no­longer­limited­to­the­
case­of­modernity,­but­rather­to­the­logos­as­a­whole.­I­believe­that­here­lies­
Lyotard’s­ultimate­question­on­technics­–­which,­however,­remains­ambiguous.­
Lyotard­attempted­to­compare­what­he­means­by­anamnesis­with­what­Dôgen­
calls “a clear mirror” in Shōbōgenzō,­the­classic­of­Zen­Buddhism.­I­will­quote­at­
length­the­comment­from­Lyotard,­in­order­to­make­clear­what­he­thinks­about­
it.­Let’s­look­closely­at­Lyotard’s­discussion­on­Dôgen:
It­makes­sense­to­try­to­recall­something­(let’s­call­it­something)­which­
has­not­been­inscribed­if­the­inscription­of­this­something­broke the sup-
port­of­the­writing­or­the­memory.­I­am­borrowing­this­metaphor­of­the­
mirror­from­one­of­the­treatises­of­Dōgen’s­Shōbōgenzō,­the­Zenki,­there­
can­be­a­presence­that­the­mirror­cannot­reflect,­but­that­breaks­it­into­
smithereens.­A­foreigner­or­a­Chinese­can­come­before­the­mirror­and­
their­image­appears­in­it.­But­if­what­Dōgen­calls­“a­clear­mirror”­faces­the­
mirror,­then­“everything­will­break­into­smithereens”.­And­Dōgen­goes­on­
to­make­this­clear:­“Do­not­imagine­that­there­is­first­the­time­in­which­the­
breaking­has­not­yet­happened,­nor­that­there­is­then­the­time­in­which­
everything­breaks.­There­is­just­the­breaking.”­So­there­is­a­breaking­
presence­which­is­never­inscribed­nor­memorable.­It­does­not­appear.­
It­is­not­a­forgotten­inscription,­it­doesn’t­have­its­place­and­time­on­the­
support­of­inscriptions,­in­the­reflecting­mirror.­It­remains­unknown­to­the­
breachings­and­scannings.21
This­passage­seems­to­me­the­most­puzzling­part­of­Lyotard’s­intervention.­
The­mirror­and­clear­mirror­seem­to­have­a­lot­of­metaphorical­connotations.­
As­a­kind­of­dialogue­between­a­twentieth-century­French­philosopher­and­
a­thirteenth-century­Japanese­monk,­it­is­very­difficult­for­us­to­analyse­
this­statement­without­going­into­any­kind­of­exoticism.­The­clear­mirror­is­
not­a­mirror;­rather,­it­is­one­possibility­of­the­mind,­before­which­nothing­
exists­as­what­it­is:­things­can­exist­or­not­exist.­The­clear­mirror­presents­
something­almost­opposite­to­any­conceptualisation­of­substance,­since­it­is­
mere­emptiness.­Firstly,­the­clear­mirror­negates­the­substance­or­essence­
(ousia)­as­eidos.­Hence,­there­hasn’t­been­any­event­that­breaks­the­mirror­and­
marks­the­beginning.­In­front­of­a­clear­mirror,­there­is­only­constant­breaking,­
which­destroys­the­concept­of­the­self­(the­self­cannot­be­mirrored­at­all).­So­a­
Chinese­person­can­see­himself,­since­he­still­has­upādāna (clinging,­grasping,­
attachment),­which­is­a­desire­towards­representation.­In­contrast,­a­clear­
mirror­sees­everything­broken,­since­in-itself­it­is­empty.­Lyotard­further­wrote­
that­“I­am­not­sure­that­the­West­–­the­philosophical­West­–­has­succeeded­
20­ Jean-Francois­Lyotard,­Deuxième état des immatériaux,­Mars­1984,­Archive­du­Centre­
Pompidou.
21­ Lyotard,­“Logos­and­Techne,­or­Telegraphy”,­p.­55.
Anamnesis and Re-orientation 189
in­thinking­this,­by­the­very­fact­of­its­technological­vocation.”22­Plato­didn’t­
succeed­with­his­concept­of­agathon,­or­“being­beyond­essence”;­Freud­tried­
with­his­concept­of­“originary­repression”­(Urverdrängung);­and­Heidegger­
tried­with­his­metaphor­of­“the­clearing”­(die Lichtung),­but­he­ignored­the­
violence­of­it.­
Lyotard­transforms­the­“clear­mirror”­into­a­question­of­writing,­that­is­also­a­
question­of­the­logos.­Here­we­come­across­another­meaning­of­substance,­
which­is­the­support,­the­hypokeimenon.­The­question­is:­can­being­[ens] be 
without­being­carried­in­the­hypokeimenon?­Or,­as­Lyotard­asked­in­the­first­
article of the Inhuman,­“can­thought­go­on­without­a­body?”­Can­logos facilitate 
an­anamnesis­that­is­not­inscribed­by­it?­In­other­words,­can­logos – and,­here,­
techno-logos – instead of determining­the­anamnesis,­rather­allow­it­to­arrive­in­
a­non-deterministic­way?­This­question­is­very­speculative,­and­far­too­difficult­
to­be­answered­in­one­article­(indeed,­it­may­take­several­generations­to­make­
it­clear­whether­or­not­this­question­in­itself­is­a­valid­one).­Lyotard­hopes­to­
move away from the logos through the logos,­such­as­was­demonstrated­in­the­
postmodern­turn.­In­the­teaching­of­Dôgen,­there­is­another­similar­passage­
that­demonstrates­this­logic.­The­Zen­master­teaches­“Think of not-thinking.­
How­do­you­think­of­not-thinking?­Non-thinking.­This­is­the­essential­art­of­
zazen.”23 Zazen or tso-ch’an, literally­means­“sitting­Zen”,­and­is­a­technique­of­
meditation.­The­opposition­that­Dôgen­created­is­thinking­and­not-thinking.­
This­is­a­pure­negation,­since­thinking­cannot­be­not-thinking,­and­not-thinking­
cannot­be­thinking.­But­between­thinking­(shiryō)­and­not-thinking­( fushiryō),­
there­is­a­third­way­which­is­non-thinking­(hishiryō);­it­negates­both­thinking­
and­not-thinking,­through­the­privation­of­thinking.­The­non-­is­the­Other.­
This negation of the logos­diverts­itself­towards­something­else,­and­there­
Lyotard­finds­in­Dôgen­the­Other­which­is­not­inscribed­in­the­logos.­Lyotard­
was­in­favour­of­this­logic.­In­a­talk­given­at­a­colloquium­on­the­occasion­of­
the­opening­of­an­exhibition­of­the­work­of­artist­Bracha­Lichtenberg­Ettinger,­
later­published­as­Anamnesis of the Visible,­Lyotard­described­her­work­as­“I 
remember that I no longer remember”.24­We­can­probably­say­that­this­double-
bind­is­the­logic­of­anamnesis:­Is­the­non-logos­possible­through­the­negation­
of logos within logos?­In­the­last­paragraph­of­the­article,­Lyotard­raised­the­
question­that­we­cited­at­the­beginning­of­this­text:
The­whole­question­is­this:­is­the­passage­possible,­will it be possible 
with, or allowed by,­the­new­mode­of­inscription­and­memoration­that­
characterizes­the­new­technologies?­Do­they­not­impose­syntheses,­and­
22­ Ibid.,­p.­55.
23­ Carl­Olson,­Zen and the Art of Postmodern Philosophy: Two Paths of Liberation From the 
Representational Mode of Thinking­(New­York:­State­University­of­New­York­Press,­2000),­
p.­68.­
24­ Jean-Francois­Lyotard,­“Anamnesis:­Of­the­Visible”,­in­Theory Culture and Society­2004,­No.­
21,­p.­118.
190 30 Years after Les Immatériaux
syntheses­conceived­still­more­intimately­in­the­soul­than­any­earlier­
technology­has­done?25
Lyotard­asked­what­kinds­of­new­possibilities­could­be­opened­up­by­this­
new­technology,­towards­the­unknown.­Or,­in­contrast,­he­asked­whether­the­
new­technology­is­only­in­favour­of­a­synthesis­which­is­even­more­efficient­
and­hegemonic,­e.g.­automation.­I­believe­that­this­is­Lyotard’s­central­ques-
tion,­and­it­was­present­throughout­his­preparation­for­Les Immatériaux.­The­
question­was­posed­to­the­philosophers­of­writing,­or­of­mnemotechnics.­The­
task­of­this­article,­in­its­most­ambitious­sense,­is­to­question­whether­it­is­a­
valid­question.­The­logos­is­confronted­with­the­clear­mirror,­in­order­to­think­
whether­it­is­possible­to­realize­the­clear­mirror­with­the­techno-logos.­If­we­
only­think­from­this­perspective,­the­postmodern­will­remain­only­a­European­
project,­and­hence­the­discourse­of­globalisation,­of­the­“common­time”,26 is 
no­more­than­a­pretext.­There­is­no­easy­way­to­evaluate­this­question­without­
going­back­to­the­Other,­from­where­the­clear­mirror­comes,­and­where­the­
différend­happens.­It­needs­courage­to­bring­in­something­exotic,­and­I­think­
Lyotard­did­it,­with­best­intentions,­to­think­with­the­différend,­a­space­opened­
up­between­European­culture­and­Japanese­Zen­Buddhism.­But­in­order­to­
understand­the­différend,­one­has­to­analyse­the­regime­of­phrases­(which­
defines­the­intentions,­descriptive,­prescriptive­or­interrogative)­and­the­
genre­of­discourses­(which­defines­the­rules)­of­the­Other.­Unfortunately,­this­
analysis­is­yet­to­be­elaborated.
Clear Mirror Confronts the Logos
Lyotard­was­right­to­relate­the­clear­mirror­to­Heidegger’s­“clearing”­or­
Lichtung,­but­I­think­it­is­not­Lichtung per se,­but­rather­Gelassenheit which 
prepares­for­the­coming­of­the­clearing.­Gelassenheit,­for­Heidegger,­is­the­
question­of­privation.­However,­there­is­a­fundamental­difference­between­
the system of Gelassenheit­and­the­system­of­the­clear mirror.­The­Korean-
German­philosopher­Byung-Chul­Han,­in­his­book­Shanzhai: Dekonstruktion 
auf Chinesisch,­makes­an­interesting­observation­in­which­he­shows­that­the­
“path”,­or­the­tao,­is­different­from­the­Weg­of­Heidegger,­since­for­the­former­
there­is­no­creation­but­only­de-creation­(Ent-schöpfung),­regardless­of­its­
origin;27­while­for­the­latter,­it­is­always­a­search­of­an­origin,­since­this­search­
is­the­condition­under­which­the­forgetting­brought­about­by­ontotheology­
might­be­recognised­as­such,­and­thereby­overcome.­It­would­be­too­quick­to­
equate­tao with clear mirror,­since­Taoism­and­Buddhism­stand­as­two­distinct­
traditions­within­China.­However,­it­is­not­a­distortion­to­show­that­the­Ent-
schöpfung­sets­up­a­common­ground­for­cultures­that­unite­different­religious­
25­ Lyotard,­“Logos­and­Techne,­or­Telegraphy”,­p.­57­(italics­added).
26­ Ibid.,­p.­47.
27­ Byung-Chul­Han,­Shanzhai: Dekonstruktion auf Chinesisch­(Berlin:­Merve,­2011).
Anamnesis and Re-orientation 191
thoughts.­Again,­the­Ent-schöpfung­that­I­borrow­from­Han­is­not­opposed­to­
creation­(Schöpfung)­as­destruction;­ent-­stands­not­for­negation­but­rather­
privation.
When­we­deal­with­two­forms­of­knowledge­(let’s­follow­Lyotard­in­speaking­of­
the­philosophical­“West”­and­the­philosophical­“East”),­we­always­risk­sim-
plifying­them,­but­in­order­to­have­a­dialogue­(if­this­is­possible­at­all),­it­is­hard­
not­to­simplify­them­as­two­systems.­A­dialogue­needs­a­common­ground,­and­
the­search­for­a­common­ground­is­always­a­privation.­I­can­here­only­give­a­
quick­sketch­of­the­reflections­of­two­major­Chinese­and­Japanese­thinkers,­
and­I­will­have­to­find­another­occasion­to­give­a­detailed­account.­For­now,­I­
will­allow­myself­some­shortcuts­by­placing­it­within­the­Kantian­framework,­
as­was­already­proposed­by­the­Chinese­philosopher­Mou­Zongsan.­Mou­is­
one­of­the­most­important­figures­of­the­new­Confucianism,­and­arguably­the­
only­one­in­the­twentieth­century­who­understood­both­Western­and­Chinese­
philosophy.­A­specialist­in­Taoism,­Buddhism­and­Confucianism,­as­well­as­
the translator of the three Critiques­of­Immanuel­Kant,­Mou­understands­
the­difference­between­the­West­and­the­East­within­Kant’s­framework:­in­a­
rather­simplified­sense,­one­concerns­a­knowledge­that,­constrained­by­the­
receptivity­of­sensible­intuition­and­the­categories­of­the­understanding,­is­
confined­to­phenomena;­the­other­concerns­an­intellectual intuition that con-
cerns­the­experience­which­goes­beyond­the­phenomenon­towards­what­Kant­
calls­the­noumenon.­Mou­writes:­
According­to­Kant,­intellectual­intuition­belongs­only­to­God,­but­not­to­
humans.­I­think­this­is­really­astonishing.­I­reflect­on­Chinese­philosophy,­
and­if­one­follows­the­thought­of­Kant,­I­think­that­Confucianism,­Bud-
dhism­and­Taoism­all­confirm­that­humans­have­intellectual­intuition;­
otherwise­it­wouldn’t­be­possible­to­become­a­saint,­buddha,­or­Zhenren.28
Indeed,­the­intellectual­intuition­conceptualized­by­Mou­is­one­that­looks­
neither­for­scientific­knowledge­nor­history­(an­origin­qua­difference),­but­to­
a­sensibility­in­which­everything­reflects­a­non-pheneomenal­world:­entering­
the­thing-in-itself­(no­matter­what­it­is,­but­probably­not­yet­possible­with­a­
computer).­The­desire­to­enter­the­noumenon­is­characterised­by­distancing­
from substance as both hypokeimenon­and­eidos,­from­physics­to­metaphysics.­
This­line­of­thought­is­further­pursued­by­the­Japanese­philosopher­Keiji­
Nishitani,­who­studied­under­Heidegger,­and­was­also­a­successor­of­Kitarō­
Nishida,­an­important­figure­of­the­Kyoto­School.­During­the­1980s,­Nishitani­
held­several­discourses­in­different­temples­in­Japan,­discussing­modern-
isation­and­Buddhism,­and­later­published­them­as­a­book­with­the­title­On 
Buddhism.­Astonishingly,­Nishitani­claimed­that­the­concept­of­the­historical­
28­ Mou­Zongsan,­Phenomenon and the Thing-in-itself­(《現象與物自身》)­(Taiwan:­Student­Book,­
1975),­p.­5­(my­translation).­Zhenren­is­the­Taoist­spiritual­master,­who­has­become­free­
and­immortal.
192 30 Years after Les Immatériaux
does­not­exist­in­Asian­culture.­What­he­meant­by­historical­is­the­awareness­
of­situating­oneself­as­a­historical­being,­and­the­anamnesis­of­historical­
events­that­reconstruct­a­historicity,­or­Geschichtlichkeit:
I­am­sure­that­Buddhism­falls­short­of­such­historical­consciousness,­at­
least­to­some­extent.­Generally­speaking,­something­called­“historical”­
exists­no­less­in­China­than­in­India­and­Japan.­But­I­have­the­impression­
that­in­these­countries­there­has­been­no­trace­of­seeing­the­world­as­
history­in­the­true­sense­of­the­word­…­This­way­of­thinking­is­somewhat­
different­from­an­historical­one,­at­least­of­the­sort­prevalent­in­the­
modern­world.29
Nishitani­further­commented­that­such­a­concept­of­historicity­is­neglected­in­
the­mode­of­thinking­proper­to­East­Asia­–­that­is,­the­search­of­the­intellectual­
intuition,­under­different­titles.­I­am­not­sure­if­we­can­understand­the­clear­
mirror­as­a­kind­of­anamnesis,­since­it­totally­undermines­the­chronological­
notion­of­time.­Nishitani,­however,­attributes­the­concept­of­historicity­to­the­
Christian­tradition,­without­asking­the­question­of­anamnesis.­A­dialogue­
could­be­made­between­Nishitani­and­Bernard­Stiegler.­This­historicity­has­
to­be­retrieved­through­the­anamnesis­of­writing,­or­technics,­which­Stiegler­
calls­“the­epochal­double­redoubling”,­that­is­“(re)constituting­a­who,­and­thus­
historicity­–­if­not­History”.30­Writing,­as­Stiegler­further­showed­in­the­third­
volume of Technics and Time: Cinematic Time and the Question of Malaise,­is­the­
“spatialisation­of­the­time­of­consciousness­past­and­passing­as­Weltgeschicht-
lichkeit”.31­Historicity­is­only­possible­through­anamnesis­with­mnenotechnics,­
and­for­it­to­happen­it­demands­an­origin­of­some­sort­(or­the­default­of­
origin).­This­line­of­thought­on­time­and­matter­is­not­present­in­Asian­
cultures,­as­Nishitani­explains:
the­other­aspect­–­namely,­that­it­is­historical­and­that­being­is­time­–­is­
comparatively­neglected.­Or­rather­I­should­say,­if­the­term­“neglect”­is­a­
bit­of­an­exaggeration,­it­is­not­sufficiently­developed.­This­is­attributable­
to­the­fact­that­Buddhism­places­emphasis­on­the­negative­inherent­in­
the­contention­that­time­is­somewhat­transient­and­that­this­is­a­world­of­
suffering.­Buddhism­seems­to­have­failed­to­grasp­that­the­world­of­time­
is­a­field­in­which­something­new­emerges­without­interruption.32
29­ Keiji­Nishitani,­On Buddhism­(NewYork:­SUNY,­2006),­p.­40.­
30­ Bernard­Stiegler,­Technics and Time,­vol.­2­(Stanford:­Standford­University­Press,­2009),­p.­
77.
31­ Bernard­Stiegler,­Technics and Time­vol.­3­(Stanford:­Stanford­University­Press,­2011),­p.­
56.
32­ Keiji­Nishitani,­On Buddhism, p.­49–50.
Anamnesis and Re-orientation 193
“Time­is­transient.”33­However,­this­transient­time­has­to­be­overcome­in­order­
to­attain­a­status­whereby­being­is­constant.34­In­this­status,­time­no­longer­
has­any­meaning.­Hence,­following­the­Heideggerian­motif,­Nishitani­observes­
that­being­has­never­been­understood­as­time,­and­hence­that­a­world­history­
is­not­fully­grasped­in­Asian­culture.­A­question­may­be­posed­immediately:­
Isn’t­there­also­writing­in­East­Asia;­and­indeed,­weren’t­the­Chinese­the­first­
to­invent­paper?­The­question­can­be­answered­in­two­ways.­Firstly,­there­was­
a privation of the anamnesis of history in favour of an anamnesis of the clear 
mirror,­meaning­that­there­is­a­tendency­in­Eastern­thought­which­ignores­the­
question­of­support.­Secondly,­the­technics­of­anamnesis­of­the­West­is­not­
limited­to­history­as­records­of­events,­but­rather­a­mode­of­thinking­which­
searches­for­an­origin,­no­matter­which­one.­The­anamnesis­of­the­clear­mirror­
designates­another­conception­of­time­and­matter­(support).­We­will­see­later­
how­this­contributed­to­the­fact­that­the­Orient­was­not­able­to­resist­the­
mnemotechnics­of­the­Occident.­
Disorientation and Dis-orientation
It­is­only­within­the­analysis­of­the­discourse­of­the­Other­that­one­can­define­
the différend.­The­postmodern­for­Lyotard­is­a­disorientation­that­challenges­
the­authority­to­announce­something­childish.­A­typical­example­of­the­
modern­gaze­is­when­Descartes­criticised­the­city­building­in­Paris,­arguing­
that­it­was­not­well­planned­and­hence­seemed­like­a­children’s­game.­This­
disorientation­has­a­double­sense,­as­a­liberation­from­the­modern,­from­
the­responsibility­and­projects­intrinsic­to­the­modern;­yet­it­is­also­a­mel-
ancholia,­since­the­post- is the search for an anamnesis which has not yet 
arrived,­and­hence­constitutes­its­very­questioning.­But­before­this­ques-
tion­can­be­reposed­and­reformulated,­it­is­necessary­to­see­another­type­
of­dis-orientation,­in­which­the­clear­mirror­confronts­the­techno-logos in 
material­terms­and­substantial­forms­in­what­was­once­called­colonisation­and­
imperialism,­and­now­globalisation.
I­allow­myself­to­briefly­summarise­a­historical­moment­after­the­Opium­
Wars.­When­China­realised­its­incompetence­in­warfare,­it­immediately­
adopted­Western­technology,­science­and­democracy,­which­totally­rewrote­
the­conception­of­time.­After­the­Opium­Wars­(1839–1842,­1856–1860),­China­
recognized­that­it­would­be­impossible­to­win­any­war­without­developing­
Western­technologies.­The­serious­defeats­it­suffered­led­to­the­Self-
Strengthening­Movement­(1861–1895),­which­extensively­modernized­the­
33­ Ibid.,­p.­49.
34­ I­use­the­word­“constant”­by­making­allusion­to­François­Jullien’s­distinction­between­
eternal­(Christian­theological­perception)­and­constant­(Chinese­perception)­as­the­
coordinate­system­of­time;­see­Jullien,­Du temps – éléments d’une philosophie de vivre 
(Paris:­Livre­de­poche,­2012).
194 30 Years after Les Immatériaux
military,­industrialized­production,­and­reformed­the­education­system.­Two­
slogans­came­out­of­the­movement­which­fully­characterize­the­spirit­of­the­
time.­The­first­one­is,­“learning­from­the­West­to­overcome­the­West”­(师夷长技
以制夷);­the­second­one­bears­a­more­cultural­and­nationalist­spirit:­“Chinese­
learning­for­fundamental­principles­and­Western­learning­for­practical­
application”­(中学为体，西学为用).­Western­technology­produced­hype­in­China,­
but­more­fundamentally,­it­produced­fear.­We­can­recall­the­example­of­the­
first­railway­in­China,­from­Shanghai­to­Woosung,­built­by­the­English­company­
Jardine,­Matheson­&­Co.­around­1876-1877.­The­railway­led­to­so­much­fear­
(in­terms­of­security­and­potential­accidents),­that­the­Ching­Dynasty­paid­
285,000­taels­of­silver­to­buy­the­railway­and­destroy­it.35­Such­moments­of­the­
transformation­of­cultures,­which­some­Asian­scholars­tend­to­ambiguously­
call­“modernisation”­or­“a­different­modernity”,­is­indeed­very­modern,­since­it­
is­absolutely­Cartesian,­in­the­sense­that­one­holds­that­the­core­philosophical­
thought­can­sustain­and­transform­the­material­condition.
The­second­reflection­on­technoscience­as­well­as­democracy­came­after­the­
1911­revolution­in­China,­when­those­who­had­been­sent­abroad­as­children­
later­became­such­intellectuals..­One­of­the­most­important­intellectual­
movements,­now­known­as­the­May Fourth Movement,­erupted­in­1919.­During­
the­1920s­and­30s,­Western­philosophy­started­to­flourish­in­China.­Three­
names­are­closely­related­to­the­contemporary­intellectual­history­of­China:­
William­James,­Henri­Bergson­and­Bertrand­Russell­(note­that­in­fact­none­
of­these­philosophers­are­specialists­in­technics).­The­intellectual­debates­of­
the­period­concerned­whether­or­not­China­should­be­fully­Westernised­and­
fully­adopt­Western­science,­technologies­and­democracy,­as­supported­by­
intellectuals­such­as­Hu­Shi­(a­student­of­John­Dewey),­and­(on­the­opposite­
side)­criticised­by­Carsun­Chang­Chia-sen­(a­student­of­Rudolf­Eucken),­
Chang­Tung-sun­(the­Chinese­translator­of­Bergson­in­the­1920s)­and­others.­
These­debates,­however,­led­to­unresolved­questions­and­uncompromising­
propositions.­Some­intellectuals­started­to­realise­the­mistake­of­the­Cartesian­
binary­opposition­between­the­mind­and­the­instrument,­expressed­in­the­
earlier­conception­of­the­relation­between­Chinese­and­Western­cultures.­
These­debates­ultimately­did­not­go­beyond­either­the­affirmation­of­a­
modernized­China­(which­included­the­alphabetisation­of­Chinese­writing),­or­
the­insistence­upon­the­values­of­life­in­traditional­thought­that­resonate­with­
the­metaphysics­of­Eucken­and­Bergson.
China­was­unable­to­go­further­because­of­a­lack­of­understanding­of­technics.­
The­intellectuals­of­the­generation­of­Mou­Zhongsan­saw­their­ultimate­task­
as­one­of­absorbing­Christianity­into­Chinese­culture.­Technics­has­never­
constituted­the­core­question­of­Chinese­philosophy­or­Chinese­culture.­One­
35­ Sun,­Kuang-Teh,­Late Ching Tradition and Debates around Westernisation (Taiwan:­
Commercial­Press,­1982)­孫廣德，晚清傳統與西化的爭論（台灣: 商務印書館, 1982）.
Anamnesis and Re-orientation 195
can­also­say­like­Stiegler­that,­in­the­West,­the­question­of­prosthesis­–­that­is­
also­the­question­of­technics­as­anamnesis­–­didn’t­come­to­light­until­recent­
centuries.­But­the­techno-logos­is­always­there,­acting­like­the­unconscious,­or­
the Nachträglichkeit­of­Freud,­which­designates­at­once­a­deferred­action­and­
also­a­supplement­(Nachtrag).­The­effectuation­of­technics­depends­largely­
on­the­adoption­and­adaptation­which­is­limited­by­culture.­An­ethnic­group­
adopts­technics­from­another­to­internalise­it­(such­as­China­has­done­to­the­
peripheral­countries),­or­adapts­itself­to­others’­technics­and­becomes­sub-
ordinated­to­them.­Culture­here­acts­as­a­stabiliser­of­technics,­either­limiting­
it­or­promoting­it.­However,­following­the­sixteenth­century­Chinese­culture­
did­not­have­the­tendency­to­advance­its­own­technics,­which­did­not­happen­
until­the­nineteenth­century,­when­it­was­forced­to­adopt­Western­science­and­
democracy.­The­situation­is­different­in­Japan,­which­had­the­consciousness­of­
“overcoming­modernity”­before­China­started­on­the­path­to­modernisation.­
We­can­speculate­that­this­may­be­the­reason­why­Nishitani­had­the­sensibility 
to­discover­the­problem­of­time­in­Asian­culture.­In­comparison­with­the­dis-
orientation­of­the­postmodern,­what­we­have­seen­above­is­a­disorientation­
in­a­double­sense,­which­is­not­only­the­loss­of­direction,­but­also­the­ability­of­
identification.­What­is­left­would­only­be­a­politics­of­identity­–­the­Orient­is­no­
longer­oriented,­but­dis-oriented.
The Nachträglichkeit of Les Immatériaux
Now we see the différend,­but­it­remains­virtual,­since­a­dialogue­–­rather­than­
a­set­of­speculations­–­is­yet­to­be­initiated.­The­distance­of­30­years­since­
Les Immatériaux provides­the­occasion­for­posing­this­question­again,­or­for­
questioning­the­question.­The­initiative­of­organising­an­event­on­Lyotard’s­
Les Immatériaux was itself a Nachträglichkeit.­Firstly,­there­was­the­shock­that­I­
experienced­when­I­came­across­the­work­of­Nishitani­and­Bernard­Stiegler’s­
Technics and Time 2: Disorientation in­2009,­when­it­seemed­to­me­that­the­
question­of­a­dialogue­between­the­West­and­the­East­based­on­the­ques-
tion­of­technics­had­remained­unanswered,­and­indeed­almost­untouched,­
for­a­century.­Secondly,­Lyotard’s­question­was­deferred,­and­hence­has­to­
be­added,­nachgetragen.­It­is­deferred­in­the­sense­that­his­question­was­not­
intelligible­to­his­contemporaries­–­or­at­least,­in­his­own­words,­remained­
“too­dialectical­to­take­seriously”.36 It is these two Nachträglichkeiten that 
urge­us­to­go­back­to­some­questions­posed­by­Lyotard­both­during­the­
preparation­(including­his­treatise­on­Kant­and­Wittgenstein­Le Différend)­and­
right­after­the­exhibition­(including­L’inhumain­and­Le postmoderne expliqué aux 
enfants),­questions­which­concerns­the­radical­opening­brought­by­modern­
technologies­and­the­speculation­on­their­new­possibilities­for­both­the­
philosophical­“West”­and­“East”. I­tried­to­approach­this­intersection­of­the­
36­ Lyotard,­“Logos­and­Techne,­or­Telegraphy”,­p.­57.
196 30 Years after Les Immatériaux
Nachträglichkeiten­with­the­question­that­I­posed­at­the­very­beginning­of­this­
article:­namely,­whether­the­postmodern­is­a­European­project.­It­may­be­a­
European­project,­but­it­shouldn’t­be­a­European­project;­and­indeed,­it­should­
serve­the­occasion­for­a­profound­and­speculative­reflection.­No­matter­how­
speculative­is­the­question­that­Lyotard­posed,­which­we­cited­at­the­opening­
of­this­article,­it­proposes­to­radically­reflect­upon­both­technological­progress­
and­the­need­to­transform­it­by­first­reconceptualising­it­(as­we­have­seen­in­
terms­of­a­new­metaphysics­of­interaction).­Lyotard’s­speculation­places­its­
hope­in­the­new­materiality­that­one­nowadays­calls­“digital”.­How­serious­is­
this­hope,­and­in­what­way­can­one­continue­to­hope?­
Qu’arrive-t-il?
Lyotard­was­very­much­aware­of­the­dangers­brought­by­telecommunication­
culture;­as­he­wrote,­“the­question­of­a­hegemonic­teleculture­is­already­
posed”,37­and­he­endeavoured­to­contemplate­this­new­condition­and­to­
search­for­a­metaphysics­which­is­both­material­and­political.­What­lies­behind­
the­dis-orientation­of­the­postmodern­is­a­desire­of­a­re-orientation,­not­only­
for­the­Orient,­but­also­for­the­Occident,­since­the­Occident­exists­in­relation­
to­the­Orient,­le différent.­Arrive-t-il?­Lyotard­asked,­“what­does­‘here’­mean­on­
the­phone,­on­television,­at­the­receiver­of­an­electronic­telescope?­And­the­
now?­Does­not­the­‘tele’­element­necessarily­obscure­the­presence,­the­‘here-
and-now’­of­the­forms­and­their­‘carnal’­reception?­What­is­a­place,­a­moment,­
not­anchored­in­the­immediate­‘suffer’­of­what­happens­[arrive].­Is­a­computer­
in­any­way­here­and­now?­Can­anything­happen­[arriver]­with­it?­Can­anything­
happen­to­it?”38­Lyotard­recalls­Heidegger’s­Ereignis,­and­the­sublime­of­Kant,­
which­manifests­itself­in­this­new­material­condition­as­a­sort­of­philosophical­
resistance.­The­arrive-t-il,­without­subject,­without­content,­is­however­always­
haunted­by­the­question­qu’arrive-t-il?
In­Beijing­in­2000,­there­was­an­exhibition­entitled­Post-Material Interpretations 
of Everyday Life by Contemporary Chinese Artists,­which­is­said­to­have­been­
influenced­by­Lyotard’s­Les Immatériaux.39­The­“post-material”­in­the­title­was­
not­meant­to­indicate­something­spiritual,­but­rather,­following­Lyotard,­a­new­
form­of­materiality,­for­example­genetic­engineering,­or­artificial­intelligence.­
At­the­end­of­the­exhibition’s­curatorial­statement,­the­curator­Wang­Zu­wrote:
We­know,­due­to­the­advancement­of­technology,­that­we­are­confronting­
the­possibility­of­developing­a­new­moral,­and­we­will­need­to­build­a­
new­structure­of­such­a­moral.­Post-material,­instead­of­saying­that­it­
37­ Ibid.,­p.­50.
38­ Jean-Francois­Lyotard,­“Quelque­chose­comme:­communication…­sans­communication,”­
in L’Inhumain: causeries sur le temps (Paris:­Galilée,­1988),­p.­129.
39­ Personal­correspondence­with­Professor­WangMingAn­of­the­Beijing­Capital­Normal­
University.
Anamnesis and Re-orientation 197
describes­the­expansion­of­material­and­the­decline­of­the­human­spirit,­
represents­their­opposition…­We­will­have­to­create­a­new­moral­visuality,­
which­redefines­art,­as­well­as­life.40
The­logic­of­this­exhibition­resembles­Lyotard’s.­However,­one­will­notice­two­
puncta­in­this­curatorial­statement.­Firstly,­what­is­presented­is­an­affirmation­
of­the­disorientation,­which­no­longer­distinguishes­the­West­and­the­East.­
Technology­becomes­a­global­phenomenon­and­fundamental­to­everyday­life.­
Should­this­not­also­be­regarded­as­the­problem­of­historicity­that­Nishitani­
lamented­in­the­1980s?­Secondly,­the­statement­refers­to­an­opposition­
between­the­decline­of­spirit­and­the­expansion­of­material,­and­hence­calls­
for­a­new­moral,­which­is­fundamentally­also­a­new­logic.
In­November­2002,­the­French­philosopher­Paul­Virilio­curated­an­exhibition­
entitled­Ce qui arrive at­the­Fondation­Cartier­in­Paris.­In­this­exhibition,­Virilio­
wanted­to­draw­attention­to­catastrophes­caused­by­technological­devel-
opment­in­the­previous­decades,­and­announced­that­a­reversal­of­what­Aris-
totle­distinguished­as­substance­and­accidents­had­taken­place.­In­light­of­the­
anticipation­of­the­normalisation­of­catastrophes­in­the­twenty-first­century,­
Virilio­hoped­to­go­back­to­the­question­of­responsibility­and­reflect­on­the­
problem­of­industrialisation,­which­becomes­destructive­to­both­corporal­and­
spiritual­beings.­Virilio­points­out­that,­for­Aristotle,­accidents­serve­to­reveal­
substance;­in­other­words,­substance­is­always­accidental;­hence­what­follows­
from­accidents­are­new­inventions.­Accidents­are­somewhat­necessary,­since­
without­them­there­can­be­no­technological­development.­But­the­great­dis-
coveries,­according­to­Virilio,­also­create­the­great­catastrophes.­Globalisation,­
through techno-logos­(and­through­philosophy),­is­also­a­process­of­the­
production­of­a­catastrophe­at­the­scale­of­nature:
and­so­it­is­merely­high­time­that­ecological­approaches­to­the­various­
forms­of­pollution­of­the­biosphere­are­finally­supplemented­by­an­
eschatological­approach­to­technical­progress,­to­this­finiteness­without­
which­dear­old­globalisation­itself­risks­becoming­a­life-size­catastrophe.41
Virilio­condemned­the­Enlightenment’s­notion­of­progress,­and­the­idea­that­
the­Orient­cannot­escape­from­the­progress­of­the­Occident.­He­quoted­the­
French-Iranian­philosopher­Daryush­Shayegan,­who­claimed­that­one­cannot­
imagine­cultures­as­separate­blocks­without­interpenetration,­and­that­hence­
we are all Occidents.42­Virilio­mocked­Shayegan,­claiming­that­to­talk­about­
“light­coming­from­the­Occident”­and­“a­world­which­cannot­escape­progress”­
is­ironic.­It­is­here­we­see­the­value­of­talking­about­le différend,­and­the­
40 后物质：当代中国艺术家解读日常生活, 北京红门画廊 (21 Oct–30 Nov, 2000), http://www.xu-ruotao.
com/exhibitions/group-2/post-material-interpretation-of-everyday-life-by-contem-35­
(my­translation).
41­ Paul­Virilio,­The Original Accident,­trans.­(Cambridge:­Polity­Press,­2007),­p.­24.
42­ Paul­Virilio,­Ce qui arrive­(Paris:­Galilée,­2002),­p.­89.
198 30 Years after Les Immatériaux
resistance­to­progress­and­the­universalisation­of­the­teleculture.­Indeed,­if­it­
does­not­take­the­question­of­technics­and­anamnesis­seriously,­I­am­not­sure­
whether­the­philosophical­East­can­inspire­the­West­any­further­than­what­
Lyotard­took­from­Dôgen.
Re-orientation: an Anamnesic Resistance?
As­the­question­of­disorientation­takes­the­new­shape­of­a­global­dis-
orientation,­Heidegger’s­critique­of­technology­seems­to­echo­from­time­to­
time.­In­the­dawn­of­the­digital­age,­didn’t­we­already­see­the­return­of­the­
Californian­Zen,­which­was­once­called­Californian­Ideology?­What­will­be­
the­difference­that­is­to­be­shaped?­I­feel­that­after­modernisation­in­Asia,­
these­questions­are­no­longer­asked.­Today­if­we­take­up­the­question­by­
Lyotard,­the­task­will­be­to­look­into­the­materiality­of­the­digital­and­the­new­
technological­condition­accompanied­with­it,­in­order­to­find­a­possibility­that­
may preserve the différend,­or­even­multiply­the­différend.
Lyotard­was­very­brave­to­raise­this­question,­which­demands­a­new­logic­
of­thinking­about­technology,­and­a­turning­against­technology­in­order­to­
explore­its­possibility.­It­is­no­longer­the­logic­that­functions­within­machines,­
but­rather­a­logic­that­liberates­beings­from­such­a­strictly­formalized­
thinking.­Or­maybe­we­can­refer­to­what­Socrates­reveals­in­his­challenge­in­
the Protagoras,­the­techne of all technai,­a­thinking­that­governs­all­practical­
technics.­Socrates­has­chosen­reason,­and­set­a­beginning­of­Western­
philosophy­separated­from­the­pre-Socratic­metaphysical­thinking.­But­
this­reason,­as­we­have­seen­in­Lyotard’s­thinking,­has­to­be­problematized­
by­introducing­the­Other,­both­a­mirror­and­a­clear­mirror.­The­interaction­
model,­for­Lyotard,­is­the­possibility­of­dismantling­the­constant­upādāna of 
creation.­If­here­the­new­materiality­allows­us­to­rethink­the­tradition­of­the­
philosophical­West,­it­is­equally­significant­for­the­philosophical­East­to­rethink­
the­question­of­anamnesis­from­another­direction.­In­this­sense,­we­may­
understand­why­Heidegger­refuses­to­seek­any­solution­in­the­East,­as­he­says­
in the famous Der Spiegel interview “Only a god can save us”: 
my­conviction­is­that­only­in­the­same­place­where­the­modern­technical­
world­took­its­origin­can­we­also­prepare­a­conversion­[Umkehr]­of­it.­In­
other­words,­this­cannot­happen­by­taking­over­Zen­Buddhism­or­other­
Eastern­experiences­of­the­world.­For­this­conversion­of­thought­we­need­
the­help­of­the­European­tradition­and­a­new­appropriation­of­it.­Thought­
will­be­transformed­only­through­thought­that­has­the­same­origin­and­
determination.43
43­ Martin­Heidegger,­“Nur­noch­ein­Gott­kann­uns­retten”,­Der Spiegel­30­(Mai,­1976):­
193–219.­Trans.­by­W.­Richardson­as­“Only­a­God­Can­Save­Us”­in­Heidegger: The Man and 
the Thinker­(1981),­ed.­T.­Sheehan,­p.­45–67.
Anamnesis and Re-orientation 199
Here­lies­both­the­affinity­and­difference­between­Lyotard­and­Heidegger.­
Lyotard­is­more­open­to­dialogue,­to­the­radical­possibility­of­the­différend. 
Indeed,­the­reason­to­look­for­the­différend­is­not­to­destroy­the­differences,­
but­rather­to­recognize­the­“inevitable­and­inescapable­possibility­of­
heterogeneity”.44­But­how­is­this­possible­in­the­case­of­Lyotard,­with­his­
insistence­on­the­Other?­Lyotard­gave­a­response­to­this­question,­and­I­think­
this­will­perhaps­be­the­starting­point­for­reflecting­on­a­possible­project­of­
re-orientation­through­the­practice­of­an­anamnesic­resistance.­I­summarise­
this response in terms of three points: writing,­origin­and­system,­though­we­
have­to­bear­in­mind­that­such­a­summary­may­not­really­reflect­the­system-
atic­thinking­of­Lyotard.
Writing.­Lyotard­had­difficulty­providing­an­example­of­the­new­technology­
that­he­imagined,­which­can­realize­the­potential­of­such­anamnesic­resist-
ance.­He­writes:­“The­only­thing­I­can­see­that­can­bear­comparison­with­this­
a-technical­or­a-technological­rule­is­writing”.45­Writing­also­distinguishes­the­
anamnesis­of­Lyotard­from­that­of­Freud,­since­Freud’s­anamnesis­is­limited­
to­free­association,­while­for­Lyotard­it­is­the­production­of­work.­Anamnesis­
is­originally­an­interminable­process;­however,­in­the­case­of­psychoanalysis­
it­is­brought­to­an­end­when­the­treatment­is­complete;­while­in­the­case­of­
artistic­creation­(including­writing),­the­artists­stop­since­labour­is­no­longer­
indispensable.­What­marks­the­difference­between­these­two­ends­is­the­work­
of­the­artists­–­which­is­also­the­mnemotechnics.­Lyotard­speculates­on­a­
passing­which­is­not­psychoanalytical,­but­rather­a­form­of­resistance­against­
the techno-logos:
We­envisage­this­writing­as­passing­or­anamnesis­in­both­writers­and­
artists­(it ’s­clearly­Cezanne’s­working-through)­as­a­resistance­(in­what­
I­think­is­a­non-psychoanalytical­sense,­more­like­that­of­Winston­in­
Orwell’s­1984) to­the­syntheses­of­breaching­and­scanning.­A­resistance­to­
clever­programmes­and­fat­telegrams.46
Winston­is­further­mentioned­in­the­chapter­entitled­Glose sur la résistance in 
Le Postmoderne expliqué aux enfants.­We­recall­that­Winston­decides­to­write­a­
diary­to­express­what­he­thinks­and­feels,­as­an­act­of­rebellion.­It­will­be­inter-
esting­to­ask:­a­rebellion­against­what,­when­the­law­doesn’t­exist­any­more?­
Winston­has­no­idea­of­the­exact­date.­It­is­not­the­anamnesis­of­an­historical­
event,­but­rather­an­act­of­resistance­to­the­systematic­stupidity­of­the­Party.­
Lyotard­turned­to­the­examples­of­Benjamin’s­micrology­named­by­Adorno.­
In One Way Street and­Berlin Childhood,­what­is­presented­is­not­the­story­of­
childhood,­but­rather­the­childhood­of­events;­to­put­it­in­another­way,­what­
44­ Michel­Olivier,­“Le­différent,­ou­la­question­de­l’enchaînement”,­in­Les Transformateurs 
Lyotard­(Paris:­Édition­Hermann,­2008),­p.­211.
45­ Lyotard,­“Logos­and­Techne,­or­Telegraphy”,­p.­56
46­ Ibid.
200 30 Years after Les Immatériaux
is­inscribed­is­the­potential­of­infinitization­instead­of­the­completion­of­a­his-
tory.­The­stories­only­inscribe­their­ungraspability.­
The­question­of­writing­enabled­by­the­new­technology­was­one­of­the­central­
themes of Les Immatériaux.­Together­with­Thierry­Chaput,­Lyotard­set­upan­
experiment­entitled­Épreuve d’écriture,­which­was­what­one­today­calls­collab-
orative­writing,­with­Bruno­Latour,­Jacques­Derrida,­Christine­Buci-Glucksman,­
Isabelle­Stengers­and­others,­creating­entries­of­keywords­and­commenting­
on­each­other’s­entries.­Even­though­today,­with­the­digital­networks,­we­
can­write­through­blogging,­social­networking,­audio-visual­creation,­coding­
and­so­on,­a­systematic­programme­on­writing­as­resistance,­aside­from­
its­journalistic­value,­still­has­to­be­thought­through;­not­only­a­task­for­the­
intellectuals,­as­demonstrated­in­the­Épreuve d’écriture,­but­also­for­the­public.­
Origin. The­origin­is­the­ungraspable.­The­philosophical­East­paid­little­
attention­to­the­relation­between­the­origin­and­the­support.­The­anamnesis­
of­the­origin­for­Lyotard­is­not­a­return­to­the­origin­that­designates­a­
place­and­date­of­an­event,­but­rather­the­unknownable,­which­cannot­be­
inscribed.­Such­an­origin,­however,­has­its­support­in­writing;­that­is­to­say,­
the­anamnesis­can­take­place­through­writing,­but­also­escapes­being­written.­
If­anamnesis­is­like­language,­moving­from­one­phrase­to­another,­it­needs­
chains­(enchaînement)­in­order­for­it­to­reach­the­referent.­The­principle­of­
the­anamnesis,­according­to­Lyotard,­emphasises­the­fact­that­“’reason’­for­
the­chain­is­never­presentable­in­terms­of­a­past­event­(originary­scene).­It­
is­immemorial”.47­The­unknowable­presents­itself­in­the­thing­and­the­voice,­
which­serve­as­calls,­or­rather­as­motifs,­for­the­reconstruction­of­the­lost­
origin.
In­a­lecture­entitled­Philosophie et Origine given­to­first­year­undergraduates­at­
the­Sorbonne­in­1964,­Lyotard­started­with­a­reflection­on­Hegel’s­first­major­
philosophical­work,­the­which­marked­his­separation­with­Schelling­and­Fichte,­
The Difference Between Fichte’s and Schelling’s Systems of Philosophy (1801).­Hegel­
described­the­birth­of­philosophy­as­a­response­to­the­loss­of­the­force­of­uni-
fication­of­human­communities:­“When­the­might­of­union­vanishes­from­the­
life­of­men­and­the­antitheses­lose­their­living­connection­and­reciprocity­and­
gain­independence,­the­need­of­philosophy­arises.48” Philosophy was born in 
order­to­retrieve­the­lost­unity­(this­became­even­clearer­in­Hegel’s­Lectures on 
the Philosophy of History,­1837).­Philosophy­is­not­history­per­se,­which­traces­
the­happening­of­this­event,­but­rather­seeks­to­recover­it­from­the­present­
moment,­writes­Lyotard,­“the origin of philosophy is today”.49 The origin escapes 
both­writing­and­philosophy­and­serves­as­the­condition­of­philosophizing,­
47­ Lyotard,­“Anamnesis of the Visible”,­p.­109.
48­ G.­W.­F.­Hegel,­The difference between Fichte’s and Schelling’s system of philosophy,­trans.­H.­
S.­Harris­and­Walter­Cerf­(Albany,­NY:­State­University­of­New­York­Press,­1977),­p.­91.
49­ Jean-Francois­Lyotard,­Pourquoi philosopher?­(Paris:­PUF,­2012),­p.­61.
Anamnesis and Re-orientation 201
while­the­possibility­of­philosophizing­resides­in­the­act­of­writing­and­
searching;­on­the­other­hand,­the­origin­without­support­and­its­practice­of­
anamnesis­is­also­the­source­of­the­dis-orientation­that­we­have­described­
above.
System. Although­Lyotard­adopted­Hegel’s­conception­of­the­task­of­philosophy­
as­the­restoration­of­original­unity,­he­moved­away­from­Hegel’s­tendency­
towards­systematisation­(let­us­recall­that­Hegel­stands­as­the­most­system-
atic­of­the­German­Idealists).­The­act­of­anamnesis­is­one­of­resistance­against­
systematisation.­Lyotard­spoke­of­the­system­as­what­survived­the­ruins­of­the­
bourgeois­world­after­the­crisis­of­capitalism,­two­World­Wars,­and­the­exter-
mination­of­European­Jews.50­Systematization,­according­to­Lyotard,­is­the­
domination­of­humans­and­nature­by­reason.­The­politics­of­anamnesis­is­a­
politics­that­seeks­the­incalculable,­something­both­of­this­reason­and­against­
it.­Thirty­years­after­Les Immatériaux,­the­new­materiality­described­by­Lyotard­
has­not­taken­the­direction­that­he­envisaged,­but­rather­has­led­to­a­new­
mode­of­reification­and­control,­which­Bernard­Stiegler­calls­“hypermaterial”.­
In­China,­the­rapid­adoption­of­technologies­has­led­to­a­misery­of­pollution­in­
all­aspects:­water,­food,­soil,­and­blood.­Economic­and­technological­progress­
today­enjoys­the­speed­of­moving­into­the­impossibility­of­anamnesis,­of­
both­the­unknown­and­historicity.­This­consists­in­the­necessity­of­resisting­
the­smart­programmes­or­fat­telegrams.­I­hope­that­the­elaboration­of­
the différend­concerning­anamnesis­in­the­two­genres­of­discourse­of­the­
philosophical­West­and­East,­however,­can­become­a­supplement­(Nachtrag)­
to­each­other.­There­is­probably­no­better­way­to­end­this­article­than­by­citing­
the­last­sentence­of­Lyotard’s­“Logos, Techne or Telegraphy”: 
I’ll­stop­on­this­vague­hope,­which­is­too­dialectical­to­take­seriously.­All­
this­remains­to­be­thought­out,­tried­out.51
50­ Lyotard,­“Anamnesis of the Visible”,­p.­117.
51­ Lyotard,­“Logos­and­Techne,­or­Telegraphy”,­p.­57.