{"id":20,"date":"2008-07-24T16:36:55","date_gmt":"2008-07-24T20:36:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/logocentric.wordpress.com\/?p=48"},"modified":"2013-06-06T17:23:03","modified_gmt":"2013-06-06T22:23:03","slug":"logic-pt2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2008\/07\/24\/logic-pt2\/","title":{"rendered":"The Logics pt2"},"content":{"rendered":"

… if naturalists offer the prospect of a causal explanation by subsuming<\/em> the phenomena under universal laws<\/em> or general mechanisms,<\/em> and if hermeneuticists explain via the use of particular contextualized interpretations<\/em>, our approach conceives of explanation in terms of a critical and articulated assemblage of logics<\/em>. Our parsimonious theoretical grammar consisting of logics and dimensions thus contributes to a kind of ‘middle-range theorizing<\/span><\/strong>‘, which moves between empirical phenomena, consisting of self-interpretations and practices, and our underlying ontological premises. Our task is thus ‘to re-describe<\/em> the ontical level in terms of distinctions brought about by [our] ontology’ (Laclau 2004 cited in Glynos et al: 164.)<\/p>\n

Fantasmatic logic: <\/strong>the way the subject enjoys that covers over, conceals the radical contingency of social reality<\/p>\n

… logics are always linked to a particular field of self-interpretations. Social logics<\/strong>, in particular, provide access to the practices under investigation, enabling us to grasp the point of a practice or institution, as well as the rules and structures that organize them … Social<\/strong> logics require therefore a ‘passage through the self-interpretations of subjects’<\/strong>, and they provide a bridge between description\/characterization and explanation\/critique 159.<\/p>\n

In any fully-fledged critical explanation of a phenomenon, political and fantasmatic logics<\/strong> have to be articulated<\/em> with a range of social logics together with the empirical contexts they inform and within which they function. The entire logic of explanation thus requires the passage through self-interpretations 160.<\/p>\n

Ontological Framework: 2 key dimensions<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The ontological framework<\/span><\/strong> that makes possible our approach<\/span> has two key dimensions, which centre on the notion of subjectivity<\/span>. These are what might be called the hermeneutic-structural and the poststructural dimensions. 162.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Hermeneutic-structural: <\/strong>centrality of self-interpretations<\/span> of subjects in social science explanations. But discursive practices exhibit varying degrees of sedimentation, ranging from regimes and institutions to everyday social habits<\/p>\n

While the social logics structuring them (discursive practices) are literally buoyed up by subjects — they do not exist except through the activity of subjects — they are not necessarily cognitively accessible to subjects, at least not immediately and without some form of intervention … logics can have significant explanatory and critical leverage independently of the consciously held self-interpretations of agents 162.<\/p>\n

poststructural:<\/strong> highlights that social structures are never complete in themselves “by foregrounding the dislocatory nature of the symbolic order<\/span> (the ‘real’ in Lacanian terms) and thus the possible emergence of subjectivity as such 162.<\/p>\n

The hermenuetic-structural dimensions fails to exhaust\u00a0our particular\u00a0ontological framework.\u00a0 It is at this point that political and fantasmatic logics come into play, thus enabling us to generate critical accounts of the constitution and dissolution of social structures themselves.\u00a0 <\/span>This is\u00a0 because they assist in the process of revealing and explaining the non-necessary character of social logics and the practices they sustain and animate. 162<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

… if naturalists offer the prospect of a causal explanation by subsuming the phenomena under universal laws or general mechanisms, and if hermeneuticists explain via the use of particular contextualized interpretations, our approach conceives of explanation in terms of a critical and articulated assemblage of logics. Our parsimonious theoretical grammar consisting of logics and dimensions … Continue reading “The Logics pt2”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,7,28,16,15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-fantasy","category-logics","category-methodology","category-ontology","category-subjectivity"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20"}],"version-history":[{"count":21,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11184,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20\/revisions\/11184"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}