I will interpret this via applying it to some of my own experience. My lineage spans from my great grandmother who came to the US from Catalonia, a region in Spain, and my great grandfather who had family that resided in Leon, Spain. My grandparents are from Mexico and so are my parents. Thus, I grew up with that heritage, that culture. Yet, growing up in the US, I think I began to lose connection with my roots. In a sense, by losing touch, I was denying who I was without even knowing. But I have made efforts to re immerse myself, by studying my culture and re leaning the languages I grew up speaking (Spanish, Portuguese, and Catalan).

It seems as though racism against people of color is the main thing projected by the media, when some issue occurs that allows that projection. We almost never here about any form or racism that white people may experience. It would do some good to get the other side of the story, exposing us to the truth; that our society just is not as perfect as may think.

This might go back to the whole deal with how he thinks that Christianity is something that degrades life. It promises a better version of life, the afterlife, thus making the current life you have now, not as important or valuable.

When you cannot find the meaning to something, in this case let's say life, then one might get the feeling of "what is the point." Thus not living a life has any true purpose.

All is to be doubted.

This idea of paralogy can be a bit confusing. In its roots, or by breaking the word down to etymological pieces, it means to go beyond or against reason. Lyotard is trying to convey that "reason" is not a universal thing, rather it is human; we made it. Thus, it can be changed. Reasoning can be changed but going against set definitions and set standards via changing the rules in the language games. Once we can show legitimization by form of paralogy, then we have satisfied the fascination with the unknown.

When the metanarrative is broken, we are essentially disrupted in some way. It is taking apart or dissolving the social bonds made because of that narrative. It also ties in the smashing into pieces of the social aggregates (social aggregate being people in the same place at the same time but they are not related or have anything in common) caused by that narrative(s), throwing them into an erratic chaos. But Lyotard is negating that such a way of thought is something that is true or has any relevance. It is a false pretense since that point of view is using a representation of society that does not truly exist. Rather, a paradisaical and "organic" society has no place in the real world and are only social constructs of the minds of individuals that are attempting to visualize the world as being perfect and having a complex type of organization. In a sense it can lead to ignorance and arrogance of the world around you. This whole idea of breaking the meta and thinking society is fine and great, just does not come to accordance with the thought of Lyotard. According to Lyotard (1979), “Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives” (p. xxiv). The inability to believe in grand narratives, which is what this point of view is essentially trying to get at; to be part of the postmodern you must be unwilling to believe or acknowledge the metanarrative.