From: "Dag.H.Moldenhagen" <Dag.H.Moldenhagen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:37:35 +0000
> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 23:11:38 -0500 (EST)
> From: Vainio Andrew Douglas <vainio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: A Preface to Transgression
> Reply-to: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, malgosia askanas wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 21:14:13 -0500 (EST)
> > From: malgosia askanas <ma@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: A Preface to Transgression
> > I have been struggling now for a while with the "Preface to Transgression"
> > essay in LCP, and would love to discuss it with someone. The problem is
> > that I don't even know how to formulate cogent questions about it.
> > Let me put forth the folowing as a first attempt. How do you interpret the
> > connection drawn in this essay between sexuality and philosophy?
> > Between the death of God and the replacement of the dialectical method
> > by the transgressive method? Am I even right in ascribing to this essay
> > a formulation of something like "the transgressive method of philosophy"?
Comment from Dag Helge Moldenhagen. Norway.
It might be that you can find some support for your questioning in the
work of Prosser-MacDonald, 1996. (USA) "The transgressional body". The
work contains a chapter on Foucault and tries to elaborate a
theological-philosophical concept of the body." Might be that you
also could use some ideas from James Nelson: " Embodiment and ....."
(I do not remember the last phrase of the title). This last work is a
work on embodiemnt and sexuality in Christian Thought. Another work
which might guive some ideas is Brown's historical work : Sexual
renunciation in early Christianity."
> > Or maybe I should just ask: what do you-all make of this essay?
> > -malgosia
> It may be that Foucault isn't really proposing a transgressive method,
> but rather a language of transgression. For example, he speaks of "the
> impossibility of attributing the millenary language of dialectics to the
> major experience that sexuality forms for us." It is possible, however,
> to speak of sexuality in the language of transgression because, as
> Foucault contends, the appearance of sexuality marks the transformation
> of man as worker into man as one who speaks.
> The language of transgression is a way of speaking of the way philosophy
> "experiences itself and its limits in language and in this transgression
> of language which carries it...to the faltering of the speaking
> subject." In short, a "communication with communication" rather than a
> philosophical method per se.
> Then again, it's been a while since I've sat down and read "Preface to
> Transgression" thoroughly. I just thought I'd flip through it and throw
> out what I could muster. It is quite likely I have no idea what I am
> talking about.
> "A man without God is like a fish
> without a bicycle."
> - Bob Black