File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2001/lyotard.0107, message 182

Subject: Re: A few questions
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:07:54 +0800

Hi Matthew,

I still don't get what the hell paralogy is.
I think I understand what everyone is talking about.
Is it the same thing?
(Is that paralogy? [Shrugging my shoulders])

Does it involve tracing the intent of someone (say a client, someone who you 
know some history of) from a statement back? All you have to do is be aware 
of yourself, self-knowledge. The Foucaltian notion of the labour performed 
to acrue knowledge transforming the perception of the acruer should be taken 
into account.

>Judging the concept of paralogy by the standard of CAN IT GUARANTEE  NO 
>EXCLUSIONS? will cause us to miss the point.  Nothing meets that criteria!

But the only thing that guarantees no more exclusions is a language of 
grunts and a preformativity of carnality. Language is exlcusive (it shops at 
Donna Karen). Are you talking about a false hope? Like when people eat 97% 
fat free muffins, thinking that they will become 'healthy'. When they should 
be told only have one, not ten, and go to the gym everyday.

It depends on the paralogist doesn't it? The intent of the communicator, the 
subjective inflections of meaning? And by intent I do not mean some sort of 
Machiavellian evil or Christian good consciousness... well not only them.


PS I don't really know what paralogy is yet, but I like to have some fun.

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005