Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 13:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lois Shawver <rathbone-AT-crl.com>
Subject: Re: Paralogy and Noise




Darren, I didn't follow the last few sentences of your intersting post.  
Would you mind elaborating?  My confusion starts with the words "A 
Habermas..."  See the post below.

..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.
>