> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 23:11:38 -0500 (EST)
> From: Vainio Andrew Douglas <vainio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: A Preface to Transgression
> Reply-to: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, malgosia askanas wrote:
>
> > Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 21:14:13 -0500 (EST)
> > From: malgosia askanas <ma@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: A Preface to Transgression
> >
> > I have been struggling now for a while with the "Preface to Transgression"
> > essay in LCP, and would love to discuss it with someone. The problem is
> > that I don't even know how to formulate cogent questions about it.
> > Let me put forth the folowing as a first attempt. How do you interpret the
> > connection drawn in this essay between sexuality and philosophy?
> > Between the death of God and the replacement of the dialectical method
> > by the transgressive method? Am I even right in ascribing to this essay
> > a formulation of something like "the transgressive method of philosophy"?
> >
Comment from Dag Helge Moldenhagen. Norway.
It might be that you can find some support for your questioning in the
work of Prosser-MacDonald, 1996. (USA) "The transgressional body". The
work contains a chapter on Foucault and tries to elaborate a
theological-philosophical concept of the body." Might be that you
also could use some ideas from James Nelson: " Embodiment and ....."
(I do not remember the last phrase of the title). This last work is a
work on embodiemnt and sexuality in Christian Thought. Another work
which might guive some ideas is Brown's historical work : Sexual
renunciation in early Christianity."
> > Or maybe I should just ask: what do you-all make of this essay?
> >
> >
> > -malgosia
> >
> It may be that Foucault isn't really proposing a transgressive method,
> but rather a language of transgression. For example, he speaks of "the
> impossibility of attributing the millenary language of dialectics to the
> major experience that sexuality forms for us." It is possible, however,
> to speak of sexuality in the language of transgression because, as
> Foucault contends, the appearance of sexuality marks the transformation
> of man as worker into man as one who speaks.
> The language of transgression is a way of speaking of the way philosophy
> "experiences itself and its limits in language and in this transgression
> of language which carries it...to the faltering of the speaking
> subject." In short, a "communication with communication" rather than a
> philosophical method per se.
> Then again, it's been a while since I've sat down and read "Preface to
> Transgression" thoroughly. I just thought I'd flip through it and throw
> out what I could muster. It is quite likely I have no idea what I am
> talking about.
>
> s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "A man without God is like a fish
> without a bicycle."
> - Bob Black
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Vainio Andrew Douglas <vainio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: A Preface to Transgression
> Reply-to: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, malgosia askanas wrote:
>
> > Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 21:14:13 -0500 (EST)
> > From: malgosia askanas <ma@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: A Preface to Transgression
> >
> > I have been struggling now for a while with the "Preface to Transgression"
> > essay in LCP, and would love to discuss it with someone. The problem is
> > that I don't even know how to formulate cogent questions about it.
> > Let me put forth the folowing as a first attempt. How do you interpret the
> > connection drawn in this essay between sexuality and philosophy?
> > Between the death of God and the replacement of the dialectical method
> > by the transgressive method? Am I even right in ascribing to this essay
> > a formulation of something like "the transgressive method of philosophy"?
> >
Comment from Dag Helge Moldenhagen. Norway.
It might be that you can find some support for your questioning in the
work of Prosser-MacDonald, 1996. (USA) "The transgressional body". The
work contains a chapter on Foucault and tries to elaborate a
theological-philosophical concept of the body." Might be that you
also could use some ideas from James Nelson: " Embodiment and ....."
(I do not remember the last phrase of the title). This last work is a
work on embodiemnt and sexuality in Christian Thought. Another work
which might guive some ideas is Brown's historical work : Sexual
renunciation in early Christianity."
> > Or maybe I should just ask: what do you-all make of this essay?
> >
> >
> > -malgosia
> >
> It may be that Foucault isn't really proposing a transgressive method,
> but rather a language of transgression. For example, he speaks of "the
> impossibility of attributing the millenary language of dialectics to the
> major experience that sexuality forms for us." It is possible, however,
> to speak of sexuality in the language of transgression because, as
> Foucault contends, the appearance of sexuality marks the transformation
> of man as worker into man as one who speaks.
> The language of transgression is a way of speaking of the way philosophy
> "experiences itself and its limits in language and in this transgression
> of language which carries it...to the faltering of the speaking
> subject." In short, a "communication with communication" rather than a
> philosophical method per se.
> Then again, it's been a while since I've sat down and read "Preface to
> Transgression" thoroughly. I just thought I'd flip through it and throw
> out what I could muster. It is quite likely I have no idea what I am
> talking about.
>
> s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "A man without God is like a fish
> without a bicycle."
> - Bob Black
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>