Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:39:20 -0700
From: Sissy <sissy-AT-ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Paralogy in psychology


Hi Glen and All
while considering the notions of  brainstorming, free association, hypothetical,
as if, avoidance of strict definitions how does that fit together and lead to
the below entirely developed technique of  "generous listening" in the below
definition from a dictionary?
generous listening (or reading) - term for one of the things we do to promote
paralogy. It involves
accepting the other person's key terms in their distinctive senses.  Generous
listening does not require us to accept the other person's conclusions, but it
does require us to be generous in their distinctive use of words.  It is to be
distinguished from critical listening.
Don't know about any one else but this certainly doesn't fit together with free
association hypothetic
as if and avoidance of strict definitions in my mind, leaving alone that as it's
defined generous listening
is the practice of listening consumers identify as that of a rapist who
generously hears a woman's
screams of NO and doesn't accept that NO as a respected conclusion. Another
reason consumers
don't see any hope of just politics in the notion of paralogy if this is what it
produces as a form of
listening.

hbone wrote:

> 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
> >

--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/