Re: foucault, power and authenticity

of "bedrock." Perhaps I'm repressed or cowardly for this
dissatisfaction yet I can't seem to shake it. Perhaps I AM a "biped,
ungrateful." Nevertheless, I can't help but feel offended. Alright, I
admit it: technically, I'm a verb rather than a noun and there is no
foundation. But let me have my bedrock!!! Yes, bedrock is not
entirely static. It isn't fixed nor permanent. It's moving (albeit so
slowly relative to everything else it appears to be firm.) It's in
process. It's becoming. Blah, blah, blah... But let's admit that
some "things" move more slowly than others. So the best I can come up
with is an emphasis on the more viscous aspects of subjectivity. Can't
these extended moments of viscosity serve as pseudo-foundations?
Aren't they important (especially as they play in the web of power
relations?) If I can't have bedrock can I at least have a glacier?
Lately, all the emphasis seems to be on the more fluid aspects of self.
Although these aspects are important and I'm not suggesting that there
is some sort of underlying inherent core or essence, I'm more intrigued
with viscosity and I'm wondering if anyone else thinks this is
important. I would greatly appreciate it someone would address this
issue or would address why this shouldn't be an issue. I'm begging for
a glacier. Come on... someone... please?



Partial thread listing: