File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2001/lyotard.0107, message 199

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 07:09:23 -0700
Subject: Re: A few questions

Matthew Asher Levy wrote:

> when you say "the limits of paralogy" it reveals that you are thinking of
> paralogy as a program.. in psychology it might make sense to talk about the
> limits of paralogy because it refers to a certain set of approaches.  i
> don't think of it as certain set of approaches.  it is just the will to take
> different sorts of approaches.
> > > 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?
> Abuse, hate, terror and intimidation are not reasoning.  If you see them,
> stop them, if you can.  But don't use these horrors as an excuse to tell
> other people how to think.

Guess this can be a problem then at least if some folks think the way to
stop them is to inquire respectfully have people elaborate and further
explain, how you come to hate, while agonistical challenging the idea of hate
with other reasoning as the only way to stop hate.

> Matthew

Click here for Free Video!!


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005