Mohou být Lyotardovy "rozepře" inspirací nové metodologie ve ve společenských vědách?

Be able to be Lyotard's "Litiges" inspiration for new methodology in social sciences?In first part of my work I describe shortly position of postmodern philosophy in two aspects: postmodern apprehension of knowledge and apprehension of history. In my opinion in both apprehensions play most important role some form of power (or duress), which create "the truth". Without the power of social (or some other) structure exist infinite equal stories. The hstory in postmodern thought is chain of causes of power use, which produce concept of subjectivity. In history (or in space) exist many of these concepts and we cannot compare its.In main part I compare Lyotard's "chaotic" writing with Wittgenstein, Nietzche.I describe Lyotard's "logocentrism" as special form of "reality building." In his conception world is chain of phase springs (as sui-generis) and philosophy can describe relations between spring phrases. Something like subject exists only inside phrases. Subject doesn't use langue voluntarily. Spring phrases describe (and manage) speaking subject.Historic case destroying concept of modernity is "Osvetim". In this case Jews were kill without any part in concept of Nazis interpretation of history. After holocaust we cannot tell any story of holocaust. This silence is "clue of crime." Creation of Israel state is necessary because made conditions for resolution if silence in foreign relations between Germany (?) and Israel.Economic discourse (discourse is special chain spring phrases, which relations is create by same convention) is defined by special convention of connection of phrases, which can destroy "time". Money and capital are simply concentration of time. Work is complex of discourses. It is outgo of time. This is reason why economic discourse and work is disparate. This is Marxian core of Lyotard's position of critique of economy.In my opinion Lyotard exploit holocaust tragedy in his text. His critique of economy is absurd, because I didn't seek any knowledge of contemporary economic theory in text. If he use some special term like "marginal cost", he don't explain its position in any theoretic frame. Used examples of trade interactions bypass economic explanation of term.