Hello, all!
For starters I would like to thank Jim Underwood for his comments on Las
Meninas. As I read it I questioned its inclusion, having previously only
read Prose of the World. What was Foucault doing with this painting, why
walk us through it so painstakingly? I have done a lot of thinking and
reading of other authors about positioning of the self and science, the self
and consequences, mangles of practice (thank you Andrew Pickering). In their
use of philosophy-talk and apparent aversion to the "real" world, I have
ended up feeling far from the literature ("humanities") I so enjoyed at the
beginning of my education. But as is obvious from Foucault's use of the
painting as a metaphor/model, philosophy and culture are not separate, and
Jim's concise comment about "prescence and abscence" pulled the two together
for me again.
The next part of this message is addressed directly to Jane Redmont, whose
summation of Foucault's influences I found informative. Jane, I would like
to hear more from you about the intellectual climate of France (quite an
aside from our topic, I admit). It seems to me that their great thinkers
become much more widely recognized and appreciated than any here in the US.
Is that true? To what would you attribute that? Do you feel it has the
affect of greater philosophical fluency in the average wo/man (in both the
sense of background knowledge and ease of subject)? Or are they simply
better publicized, not read? I would appreciate any insights you might have.
Cheerio all, Eileen Gebbie
------------------
For starters I would like to thank Jim Underwood for his comments on Las
Meninas. As I read it I questioned its inclusion, having previously only
read Prose of the World. What was Foucault doing with this painting, why
walk us through it so painstakingly? I have done a lot of thinking and
reading of other authors about positioning of the self and science, the self
and consequences, mangles of practice (thank you Andrew Pickering). In their
use of philosophy-talk and apparent aversion to the "real" world, I have
ended up feeling far from the literature ("humanities") I so enjoyed at the
beginning of my education. But as is obvious from Foucault's use of the
painting as a metaphor/model, philosophy and culture are not separate, and
Jim's concise comment about "prescence and abscence" pulled the two together
for me again.
The next part of this message is addressed directly to Jane Redmont, whose
summation of Foucault's influences I found informative. Jane, I would like
to hear more from you about the intellectual climate of France (quite an
aside from our topic, I admit). It seems to me that their great thinkers
become much more widely recognized and appreciated than any here in the US.
Is that true? To what would you attribute that? Do you feel it has the
affect of greater philosophical fluency in the average wo/man (in both the
sense of background knowledge and ease of subject)? Or are they simply
better publicized, not read? I would appreciate any insights you might have.
Cheerio all, Eileen Gebbie
------------------