Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 23:46:51 -0800 Subject: Re: Ludens is the Father of All Things Lois Shawver wrote: > > Thanks for the intersting discussion to all. I want to > assert my different interpretation of the passage that Ari > recently cited and wrote about: > > Ari wrote: > "On pg. 61 of PMC, Lyotard says clearly that paralogy is > not innovation, " > > Look at the passage again. I want to give you my > interpretation. It says: > > The problem is therefore to > determine whether it is possible > to have a form of legitimation > based solely on paralogy. Paralogy > must be distinguished from > *innovation*: [innovation] is > undr the command of the system, > or at least used by it to improve > its efficiency; [paralogy] is a move > ...played in the pragmatics of > knowledge. > > Before I give you my interpretation of this passage lets > look at a > few terms. "Pragmatics of knowledge" Lyotard talks about > the pragmatics of knowledge 18-23 and the pragmatics of > scientific knowledge 23-27. > By "pragmatics of knowledge" I think he means the practice > of knowledge, how we legitimate it, how we distinguish the > knower from the one who doesn't and so forth. In the > pragmatics of scientific knowledge he also talks about the > practice of knowledge (obaining it, legitimating it, etc.) > > So, when Lyotard says that "[paralogy] is a move ...played > in the pragmatics of knowledge," he means that paralogy > changes the way we obtain knowledge, legitimate it, > distinguish knowers, and so forth. How do we change it? > > Paralogy requires two steps: 1) the recognition that > there are many language games each with their own rule and > 2) that the rules must be defined by the conversational > community and subject to their cancellation. (At least, > this is my interpretation of 66.) In other words, the > paralogists might say, "Well, we could talk about truth as > if it meant X, but I suggest we talk about it as if it > meant Y." If you study this proposal a bit, you'll see > tha the statement tends to satisfy both 1 and 2 and that > it means that the game can be played in one of several > okay ways and that they can establish the rules of the > game locally among themselves. > > Now, go back to p.61. In the next sentence after the > above excerpt, Lyotard goes onto tell us that in reality > "innovation" and "paralogy" frequently are transformed > into one another and he also says (by implication and in > the space where I put the ... above) that paralogy is > often not recognized as paralogical until later. > > So, innovation is similar to paralogy but not quite the > same. It can look the same. What is the difference? I > think the difference is that paralogy takes us into a new > language game. It is not an innovation within the system > (rather like Kuhn's normal science) but a move to change > the game that allows data before us to show different > patterns. The paralogy, then (read on for the next > paragraph) tends to destabilize the game that is being > played and allow us to move into another language game by > encouraging the promulgation of new rules and norms that > are locally and provisionally determined. > > Let me return to my example of the Xerostomia dialogue > (from my recent paper - I posted this in a post > yesterday). The scientists locally and provisionally (and > operationally) defined their terms. When they did, then > different findings were available (from the same > databank). New blind spots were there (we could not see > the patterns available with other definitions) and yet we > cleared away old blind spots in the process. > > This is how I am reading the statement on 61 that has been > interpreted as saying that paralogy is not innovation. It > is not "innovation" within the same language game. It is > the creation of new language games in which new moves will > naturally be made, new ideas will be uncovered, as well as > new blind spots. It can be hard to recognize that a new > langauge game has been created in context. Moves that > create new language games can seem and feel like > innovation within the old languge game, and, in fact can > (and frequently do) actually work as innovation within the > old games or move back and forth between innovation in the > old games and creation of new games. > > That's how I'm reading 61. > > ..Lois Shawver -AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT- Lois, This seems consistent with an example Don Smith posted lately, also with the scientist (Newman maybe) who said, "what we don't understand, we explain to each other". How to hear becomes very important if you really want to understand the Other's perplexities and acquire enough of his perspective to describe your own. Hugh
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005