Lyotard, Langlois: Approaching knowledge production, 'technocultural' language games

I want to attempt to read Langlois through Lyotard’s conception of the transformation of knowledge in a computerized society. I would like to explore Langlois’ case studies in terms of the possible directions for a computerized society imagined by Lyotard –the terrorizing “dream” of controlling and regulating the market system, or the emancipatory open access to, “memory and data banks” (67).

Lyotard believes, “It is possible to conceive the world of postmodern knowledge as governed by a game of perfect information, in the sense that the data is in principle assessable to any expert..” (52) There are ways in which I think the case studies explored by Langlois elucidate and complicate this conception of the nature of knowledge and its distribution within “technocultural” systems.

I still need to flush out these ideas to hone in on one particular question:

-How circulating knowledge (collaboratively produced) within Langlois’ “technoculture” is exteriorized in relation to its ‘knower.’

-How Lyotard’s conception of paralogy does or does not evade "terror" through Langlois’ case studies.

-I would like to integrate Langlos’ use of ANT –and the assignment of technological processes as non-human actors and therefore as active participants in the production of knowledge through the mediation of user-produced content. This appears to complicate Lyotard’s conception of the dynamic between producers and users of knowledge.

-How Lyotard gives power to language games, advocates a linguistic fundamentalism/privileging of language and what happens to the power of language in a technoculture where, “language as discourse does not simply transmit; it shapes our relationship to the world and positions us within a specific knowledge/power system"or when, "language is influenced by material, technological and cultural conditions.” (Langlois, 85)

-The legitimation of knowledge is analyzed through Langlois’ technocultural lens in which, “computer networks shape knowledge according to specific techno-cultural rules.” (39) She determines that it is , “changes in the material basis for representation that changes the relations of power and what we understand as knowledge.” (55) I want to unpack how discourse according to Langlois changes the rules of the game and plays a role in legitimating objects of knowledge and in mediating who participates in this legitimation.