From: Gary Yuen <gyuen@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 02:00:51 -0700
I wrote a bit more after that last paragraph and added a sentence to that
paragraph I sent you. It may be insignificant but I believe it does
further enrich it. So here it is again:
One cannot help but wonder if Foucault, a man of "splendor and precision"
(Blanchot) did not believe in the concept of the same and the other, that
such a movement was one of the first and foremost, and perhaps even the
most profound, intentional fallacies that we can find in the history of
man. If we go back into history to the point, if it may be found at all
(and it would be interesting to ponder the very fact of proposing this
question), the moment when history violently destroyed pre-history, we may
be shocked to find that there very well may not be a concept of the other.
People of such an age, if they may be considered individuals outside
"technologies of the self", would have no sense of otherness; To ask them
the question "What is the other?" may have made as much sense as "What is
the same?" That is, such a question would not only have been unimportant,
but even unimaginable.
At 11:42 PM 10/10/97 +0500, Ammar wrote:
>"a day will dawn when all the disparity(b/w Same and the Other)finds
>itself effaced.The power which will come to be exercised at the level of
>everyday life...will be made up of a fine,differentiated ,continuous
>network".Could anyone help me with this quote from "Power and Norm"
>where F. is discussing the relation of the Same and thhe Other?