In Lyotard's (1984) philosophy, the term "paralogy" means a flood of good ideas that are inspired by conversation.  Postmoderns, he tells us, have a quest for "paralogy,"  a hunger for stimulating conversation and ideas that work in a satisfying way.  To get those ideas paralogists often share an irreverent attitude towards well accepted theories, breaking them up and recombining them in revolutionary new ways.  The point of paralogy is to help us shake ourselves loose of stultifying traditional frameworks that we have come to take for granted in order to enhance our spontaneous creativity. 

How can we do that?  Lyotard observes that  people today (in our postmodern era)  have discovered ways to create paralogy.  He tries to analyze what he finds in order to reveal our paralogical techniques. 

When paralogy works, it seems to rely on two techniques:  First, postmoderns avoid "terror", where terror means arbitrarily removing people from the discussion, in order to prevent them from talking even when they are presenting themselves in ways not designed to shut us up. 

Second, paralogists allow people to define their terms locally.  That is, if someone says "What I mean by 'stuff' is everything that I have that isn't worth anything to anyone else,"  in paralogy we let that definition stand as a a local and provisional definition of "stuff."  Rather than challenge the definition, we try to step inside the speaker's vocabulary.  This is generous listening and it promotes a reciprocal generosity when it is our turn to speak. 

Lyotard also felt that paralogy would be fostered by agonistics, or contention. angry words.  He thought that people would be inspired by a good fight.  I tend to disagree.  A good fight may be inspiring, but in the end, if the verbal weapons are lethal enough, it shuts the conversation up. 

I think what is needed is agreeable disagreement, alternative disagreeing ideas presented in ways that do not offend.  Good ideas seem much more likely to flow when people do not anticipate having their character assasinated in pejorative language and when disagreement is less personal and more directed at the text being challenged. 

Also, paralogy, in my view, is is more likely to happen when the participants give each other space to speak, let them negotiate the language they are going to use to say what they want to say.  Generous paralogical listeners simply try to step inside each other's language and make sense of it before they extend alternative statements.  This requires us to ask people good questions but also to give people the space and support they need to answer those questions.  People often do not know what they think unless others are willing to ask about it and listen. 

Does paralogy sound like something everyone would want?  There are those that argue against paralogy.  There is a paper you can access below by Hatcher.  However, the call for paralogy in a number of papers also suggests that people might well fall into non-paralogical discourse unintentionally.  These papers do not use the term "paralogy."  But, if you read between the lines, you will see that these are papers far and against it. 
 

Arguments for a Paralogy: 

Reni Arcilla  - Against Polemics, For Disarming Communication  A Publication of the Philosophy of Education Society 

Susan Rice - Communicative Virtues A Publication of the Philosophy of Education Society 
Argument against Postmodern Paralogy 
and for Rational Debate: 
Donald Hatcher 
My argument against Hatcher 
 

Lyotard, J-F. The Postmodern condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984. 

Shawver, L. (1998). Postmodernizing the Unconscious.  The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 58(4). 

Shawver, L. (1998), On the Clinical Relevance of Selected Postmodern Ideas:
with a Focus on Lyotard's Concept of "Differend".  @ux(Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis), 26(4), 617-635.
 
Shawver, L. (1998).  A Clinical Adaptation of Lyotard's Postmodern Ideas.  A paper in progress.