Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 11:37:54 -0100
Subject: Re: Paralogy in psychology


Glen,

A good guess.

This word has been discussed a lot.  Think of "brainstorming",  "free
association",
hypothetical, "as-if" situations, avoidance of "strict" definitions.

Hugh
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Hi,
>
> I looked paralogy up on www.dictionary.com, and it came back with the
> definition:
>
> paralogy \Pa*ral"o*gy\, n. [Gr. ?; ? beside, beyond + ? reason.] False
> reasoning; paralogism.
>
> In what sense does Lyotard use the word? (I am guessing he leans more
> towards 'beyond reason' rather than 'false reason')
>
> Glen.
>
> >From: steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com
> >Reply-To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> >To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> >Subject: Re: Paralogy in psychology
> >Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 18:17:10 +0100
> >
> >S
> >
> >I'm afraid I am non the wiser - how does the use of paralogy improve the
> >science
> >of psychology? Is there something more substansive I can refer to?
> >
> >The question Lyotard asks regarding legitimation of knowledge but never
> >satisfactorily answers remains relevant - " The problem is to determine
> >whether
> >it is possible to have a form of legitimation based solely on
paralogy..."
> >(P61
> >PMC). His use of the 'petit narrative' as the fundemental form of
> >imaginative
> >invention remains as dubious and questionable today as it was when he
wrote
> >the
> >text. It is questionable because of the partial selection of narratives
> >being
> >refused in the proclaimed end of the 'Grande narratives...' (some of whom
> >are
> >reinventing themselves presently.)
> >
> >But since he is dealing with what he defines as 'an ideal usage...of
> >opinion' -
> >see for example the discussion in Just Gaming where Lyotard relates
> >paralogism to
> >Kantian idealism... I have some difficulty in relating such a usage to
the
> >science of psychology....  However it seemingly fits within the type of
> >grand
> >narrative which works through legitmating the variety of of fields of
> >knowledge
> >in developing the knowledge and and education of knowing human subjects.
> >This
> >variety of human subject is proposed as the core of the telos of
knowledge
> >and
> >the real, expanding on all the roads of science and legitimates them...
> >
> >
> >regards
> >
> >sdv
> >
> >
> >
> >Sissy wrote:
> >
> > > Matthew Asher Levy wrote:
> > >
> > > > Would you be willing to cite for us a few sentences from your
> >psychological
> > > > sources where they use "parology"?  It would be interesting and
easier
> >for
> > > > us to comment....
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > Sorry it's taken me a bit to get back to you.  I was hit with an email
> > > virus, and my comuputer was out of commission.
> > > These are two excerpts from the psychologists where parolgoy is
> > > being utilized.
> > >
> > > Subject:      my ambivalence
> > >
> > > Nick, Tom, Leonard, and all the rest.  I want to tell you that I'm
here,
> > > and that I'm here looking over your shoulder and that I am admiring
what
> >I
> > > imagine you to be doing -- but I'm reluctant at the moment to join
you.
> > > I believe in your vision, but I am ambivalent about creating a
> > > conversation while people are telling us how terribly vulnerable they
> >are
> > > when people say things that challenge them, how dramatically unsafe
> > > opposing views make them feel.  Maybe the world isn't ready for
paralogy
> > > in every spot.  Do you really think it is ready for it here?
> > >
> > >  Subject: Re: My view on paralogy on MFTC? (a list community now
> >disbanded)
> > >
> > > Both Habermas and Lyotard were eager to distinguish their work. For
one
> > > thing, Habermas has presented himself as one who believes in the
> >"project
> > > of modernity," and Lyotard represents himself as "postodern." This has
> > > framed their ongoing debate which only ended when Lyotard died a few
> >years
> > > ago.  Perhaps these notes will be helpful to your comparison of
Habermas
> > > and lyotard. They are taken from Lyotard's classic text, The
postmodern
> > > Condition, pp.65-66.
> > >
> > > [I]t sems neither possible, nor even prudent, to follow Habermas in
> > > orienting our treatment of the problem of legitimation in the
direction
> >of
> > > a search for universal consensus through what he calls 'Diskurs', in
> >ohter
> > > words, a dialogue of argumentation.  This would be to make two
> > > assumptions. The first is that it is ossible for all speakers to come
to
> > > agreement on which rules or metaprescriptions are universall valid for
> > > languge games, when it is clear that languge games are
heteromomorphous,
> > > subject to heterogeneous sets of pragmatic rules.  The second
assumption
> > > is that the goal of dialogue is consensus. But as I have shown in the
> > > analysis of the pragmatics of science, consensus is only a particular
> > > stage in the discussion, not its end. Its end, on the contrary, is
> > > paralogy." (pp.65-66)  .
> >
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>