>SC WROTE :
>
>
>Needless to say this aesthetic position is not a mere dandyism.
>Becoming-fictive is insurrectional. It makes one less localizable by
>technologies of power. In 1977 Foucault said:
>
I am not sure exactly what this means. Maybe someone could explain it to me.>
"It seems to me that the possibility exists for fiction to function in
>truth, for a fictional discourse to induce effects of truth, and for
>bringing it about that a true discourse 'engenders' or 'manufactures'
>something that does not as yet exist, that is 'fictions' it. One 'fictions'
>history on the basis of a political reality that makes it true, one
>'fictions' a politics not yet in existence on the basis of a historical
>truth" (Power/Knowledge 193)
>
To take up this last point. This is what it is all about. As Foucault
foresaw "there are domains of truth" Discursive practices as discussed in
"The Archaeology of Knowledge where 'truth' is manipulated to suit those who
'call the tune'. After all, modern power is all about controlling how
people think. I've just been to a conference on establishing a Universal
Basic Income and you can bet your bottom dollar that certain vested
interests will fight the idea all the way. One way of doing that is to
manipulate the 'truth'.
>In The Genealogy of Morals N. rites:
>
>"Art: where deception has a good conscience and the lie is sanctified"
>
How true. Deception certainly has a good conscience and never gives the lie
a second thought.
Ross
>
>
Do not ask me who I am and do not ask me to remain the same : leave it to
our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order (Michel
Foucault 1972, 1988)
Ross James Swanston
breezey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>Needless to say this aesthetic position is not a mere dandyism.
>Becoming-fictive is insurrectional. It makes one less localizable by
>technologies of power. In 1977 Foucault said:
>
I am not sure exactly what this means. Maybe someone could explain it to me.>
"It seems to me that the possibility exists for fiction to function in
>truth, for a fictional discourse to induce effects of truth, and for
>bringing it about that a true discourse 'engenders' or 'manufactures'
>something that does not as yet exist, that is 'fictions' it. One 'fictions'
>history on the basis of a political reality that makes it true, one
>'fictions' a politics not yet in existence on the basis of a historical
>truth" (Power/Knowledge 193)
>
To take up this last point. This is what it is all about. As Foucault
foresaw "there are domains of truth" Discursive practices as discussed in
"The Archaeology of Knowledge where 'truth' is manipulated to suit those who
'call the tune'. After all, modern power is all about controlling how
people think. I've just been to a conference on establishing a Universal
Basic Income and you can bet your bottom dollar that certain vested
interests will fight the idea all the way. One way of doing that is to
manipulate the 'truth'.
>In The Genealogy of Morals N. rites:
>
>"Art: where deception has a good conscience and the lie is sanctified"
>
How true. Deception certainly has a good conscience and never gives the lie
a second thought.
Ross
>
>
Do not ask me who I am and do not ask me to remain the same : leave it to
our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order (Michel
Foucault 1972, 1988)
Ross James Swanston
breezey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx