From: "maiantwo" <maiantwo-AT-spacestar.net>
Subject: reality check (was Das Capital)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:10:10 -0500


Probably one of Lyotard's most "psychological" works is "Phenemenology"
(although an argument can be made for L.
E.). In the conclusion Lyotard states, "The value of pheomenology, its
"positive side", lies in its effort to recover humanity itself, beneath any
objectivist schema, which the human sciences can never recover; and any
dialogue with phenomenolgy clearly must take place on this basis...." (p.
136).

Do others on this list see some difficulty between Lyotard's ideas and the
humanist or "realist" therapies that would transcend the Freudian?  Or are
they compatible for the most part?

I see Lyotard valuing "humanity" in its "real" state. That real state is
obtained "beneath any objectivisit schema". There is a movement among other
psychological methods toward "reality". Surely the humanists and the
"Reality Therapy" movement (Glasser) might aproach this in their therapies.

-----Original Message-----
From: colin.wright3-AT-virgin.net <colin.wright3-AT-virgin.net>
To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu <lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Date: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: Das Capital


>Lois Shawver wrote:
>>
>> Brent,
>>
>> <the contentious question(s) is really:  "what value are lyotard's
>> writings, removed from their strategic function within the political?"
>> and are those displaced writings still, in a significant sense,
>> "lyotard"?  (signed, lyotard?)>
>>
>> Well, I use to theorize about psychotherapy.  And, within the
>> psychotherapy arena, I feel, that paralogy's agonistics need not be
>> warlike, or out to defeat the client's position -- let us hope.  And
>> Lyotard says somewhere, I don'thave time to look forward, but I could
>> find the quote and you may know it, that the adversary in agonistics
>> might not be the other person, but the language one is working with.  I
>> believe that people get themselves in language game scripts, and
>> therapists need to assist in finding a way out of self-defeating
>> scripts.
>>
>> Sure, you can call this "political" but I resist this because there is
>> another move in psychotherapy that is more frankly political.  There is
>> a move to turn psychotherapy theory into an arena in which the client is
>> taught to protest his or her oppression in various conversational
>> arenas.  I prefer other ways to do therapy, and yet I like to build my
>> therapy on Lyotard's notion of paralogy, as I'm interpreting it.
>>
>> ..Lois Shawver
>
>Lois,
>     Discovering your background in psychotherapy has been a revelation
>to me, the flicking on of a lightbulb which illuminates great dark
>corners of our previous dialogues. It is absolutely clear to me now why
>you have such a strong concern for consensus, or at least the importance
>of an unproblematic communication. I can also understand why you might
>be attracted to the notions of the silenced victim and the chance of
>'justice' hinted at in 'The Differend'.
>      I'm afraid my only way into psychotherapy would be via
>psychoanalysis, which I'm sure is pretty much discredited these days, at
>least in its therapeutic (if not critical) aspect. However, would it be
>fair to say that psychotherapy still has as its goal a notion of 'cure'?
>Or is 'cure' too simplistic a word. Perhaps 'resolution' is less
>vehement.
>       I agree with Brent that there might be some fascinating questions
>emerging from a confrontation with your field of expertise and Lyotard's
>corpus. What thoughts have you had on their possible affinites?
>cheers,
>Col
>