File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2001/lyotard.0107, message 186

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:56:30 -0700
Subject: Re: A few questions

Matthew Asher Levy wrote:

The idea of paralogy, I think, is that we have to try to listen to people who
reason differently, rather than ruling them out altogether based on
grammatical rules.

> So this above  leaves room for ruling people out on the basis of a
> difference in grammatical rules or in reasoning ?

> Many parologies are exclusionary, racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, etc.
> No one is defending wierd reasoning used to hurt people.  But, the concept
> of parology is supposed to expose how "right reason" has been used to
> justify exactly the same sorts of things.
> how about if paralogy exludes people based on race sexuality gender
> class? does this not expose something about the theory vs the practice of
> paralogy? is paralogy intended as the basis for public dialogue? or is it
> an exercise in exposing the limits of reason in which case the exposure of
> the limits of paralogy is congruent with its aims and intended function?
> what are the bases on which we can rule some kinds of reasoning or
> outcomes of reasoning out? on the basis of their flagrant abuse of others,
> of the hate they reproduce, of the terrorization of others they imply, of
> the intimidation their reproduction supports? these or other bases for
> ruling some kinds of reasoning out.. or understanding that perhaps these
> are circumstances in which paralogy is not beneficial?


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005