Re: A non-defense ofthe Miller book.

I must disagree with this position provided by Dylan (attached). where
in the world does knowedge, questions and selections for what interests a
person than personal life? If personal life is not related to one's
intellectual life (a strange false dichotomy indeed, not unlike
separating the body and the mind) then where does all "knowledge" come
from? You are saying it only comes from reading other intellectuals, or
textbooks, or something already provided in a pre-personality world. I
am convinced that Foucault could not have existed had he not been
homosexual. He saw and understood much of what he wrote about by firstly
evaluating his own situation in the context of his society. From that
experience, which is empirical, he had a springboard from which to jump
into the pools he chose to study and critique. Shakespeare's life, his
emotional wringings over his mistress, the fact that he got VD, and his
resolution of thos matters provided much of his shared human "existential",
the matter
from which he composed the range of emotions, thoughts and transformation
of human spirit we see in King Lear to the Tempest, Kathleen,

On Tue, 11 Apr 1995, Riley, Dylan (G) SOCIO wrote:

> Foucault is a scientist. His work should in no sense be related to his
> 'personality'. No more than an understanding of Althusser's personal life
> sheds light on his scientific contributions do discussions of Foucault's
> sexuality illuminate his scientific contributions. These discussions, of
> which the Miller book is an excellent example, do nothing but reveal the
> narrow minded and prying puritanism of an American culture which is
> consistently unable to appreciate the contributions of important
> theoreticians.


Partial thread listing: