L’herméneutique paranoïaque

Abstract

2 RésuméCet article aborde la question de l'herméneutique (recherche de sens et de signification) spécifique à la logique paranoïaque. Cette tendance à interpréter le monde a, comme toute herméneutique humaine, une double dimension relationnelle et corporelle. Trois paradigmes sont proposés par l'auteur pour définir cette herméneutique spécifique au sujet paranoïaque :(1) « le hasard n'existe pas », (2) « une certitude qui a besoin de preuves » et ( AbstractThis paper addresses the issue of paranoiac hermeneutic (search for meaning and significance). As any human hermeneutics, this tendency to interpret the world includes a relational dimension as well as a bodily dimension. Three paradigms are proposed by the author to define this hermeneutics: (1) "the hazard does not exist" (2) " a certainty that is yet to be proved" and (3) "the paranoiac is unable to turn to a third party". This theoretical and clinical study also discusses the paranoiac logic in individuals free of mental illness and seeks to determine how a psychological paranoiac functioning will be part of the psychotic register or not. The concepts of "loss of natural evidence" and "pathology of common sense" are those which are used to demonstrate that is in the social and relational dimensions that the problems of the paranoiac lie. The fundamental question regarding the status of reality and knowledge (and of its diffusion) is the dimension that causes the switch to psychosis. The hermeneutics of the relationship is empty for the paranoiac and his "knowledge" no longer meets the social rules which normally turn interpretation into opinion and not into delusion.

Review of Conventional Explanations

“…Hence, the notion of neo-patrimonialism was developed to cope with the two dimensions of African states: essentially patrimonial rule coexisting with legal-rational authority. 28 Neo-patrimonialism is a testament to the lack of or weakness of an authoritative mechanism for the impersonal and rational allocation of state resources, and hence to the disappointing state of nation-building. The crux of the matter is that leaders in general have used the modern state apparatus to serve their personal and immediate interests instead of being 'bound' by it to advance the public interest.…”

“…The centralization bias is considered both the colonial legacy as well as the reflection of reality: the inclination of the colonial administrations was to retain central authority and personal rule prevailed, while African societies were forcefully integrated into the post-colonial mold. 41 Another distinct feature of African governments is that they have a rather large number of ministerial posts.…”