Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:47:19 -0700
From: Sissy <sissy-AT-ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: A few questions



Thanks
just one comment
to this part of what you
said "These paralogical approaches are very offensive to some people
who want rules to be grounded, for instance in "realism.""
Like the "needed Others" of paralogical dialogues?


Matthew Asher Levy wrote:

> > I still don't get what the hell paralogy is
>
> I can only tell you how I understand it.  People say something is "logical"
> when it follows certain rules: inentity, division, noncontradiction.  Basic
> Aristotle stuff.  A thing is what it is because it is not something else.
> Make distinctions between things clear.  Don't contradict yourself.
>
> People say something is a para(-)logy if it fails to follow those rules.
>
> The problem is that sometimes valid things can't be said within those rules.
> So it is important not to dismiss something out of hand because it is
> illogical in the traditional sense.  That has to do with listening.
> "Tracing intent" certainly has something to do with it, but we don't want to
> open that can of worms.
>
> It's not just about listening, though. It's also about being creative.
> That's where the avant-garde comes in.  It's doing things that have *A*
> logic to them, but not *THE* traditional, definition-based variety.  For
> instance, a lot of people establish arbitrary rules to help them be
> creative, even though the rules themselves don't have any legitimacy besides
> what they might help create.  This is what Merce Cunningham and John Cage
> using the I Ching is all about.  They don't necessarily believe in the magic
> of the I Ching, but they are just using it to break out of their habits of
> composition.  These paralogical approaches are very offensive to some people
> who want rules to be grounded, for instance in "realism."
>
> Matthew

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