From: dmwri1-AT-student.monash.edu.au
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 15:55:37 +1000
Subject: Re: Paralogy and Noise



> Regardless, to return to the original topic in this note:  Must one have 
> a Habermasian ideal language situation to have paralogy?  A case might be 
> made for saying that an ideal language situation would be paralogical, 
> but it seems to me that there are degrees of paralogy and that we can 
> talk about the extent of the paralogy in speaker's words in any context.  
> I don't need YOU to be paralogical, in other words, to be paralogical 
> myself.  Moreover, just because I am paralogical in one statement does 
> not mean that I always am.  So, I say we don't need a Habermasian ideal 
> language situation in order to be paralogical, more or less.
> 
> ..Lois Shawver

Actually, according to your argument, Habermas doesn't need an ideal 
situation of communication in order to be paralogical, or least to 
avoid Lyotard's critique. Interesting Lyotard comments about 
consensus can be found in the collection entitled "Political 
Writings", especially in "Heidegger and 'the jews' ". 
A Habermas who didn't need an ideal, undistorted, clear situation of 
communication in order to say something even remotely useful- if only 
it were true. It wouldn't get published anyway.

Darren.