Re: Newtonian metaphors for Foucauldian thought (was: Foucauldian readings...)

> >>
> >>There is landing on the conceptual difficults in defining what power
> >is .
> >>And by so doing we tend, to misinterprete what power is for real.
> >>Power can't be force or for that matter a derivative of force. Since
> power is
> >>positioned and in that case is grounded. Force traditionally, is
> directional >>which means force becomes force when it covers a distance
> in a given >>direction. For axample i apply force to break/bend an iron
> bar but I
> >>use power (parental ) order children to school . <etc., etc., etc.>

Hello people,
I would just like to say that I do not think that this "discouse" on
power can be determined, for power, in the Foucauldean sense is not
determined. That is, Power has no explicit and categorical defination
because power is not directional. Rather power is described as a "web"
of dependencies and implicit sources of power that are all extrincially
related. There is no direction, for if there was, we'd call it
hierarchy, but that is totally against that our friend Foucault had in
mind. That is, Not the Hierarchy that goes from up to down or down to
up, but a power structure that is everywhere. Force, in the Newtonian
sense is Absolute, centeral and directed, force/power in the Foucaultean
sense is Not Absolute, not centeral (rather its de-centralized, like
everything else in the post-modern), and is NOT directed as we have shown
Omar Nasim
Department of Philosophy
University of Manitoba.

Re: Newtonian metaphors for Foucauldian thought (was: Foucauldian readings...), Bayard G. Bell
Partial thread listing: