I think that maybe the main isuue is not so much whether there is such a
thing as truth, or the distinction between Truth and truths, but the
question of how not to be shackled by our own idea of "truth". The "truth"
that says that without such self-shackling via "truth" some hypothetical
hell would break loose is no more privileged in this regard than any other
"truth". Does it shackle us? Can it be opened up? One needs to bang
against _its_ limits just as much as against the limits of all other
"truths".
It seems to me important to note (but maybe others will thoroughly
disagree) that the playing field here is _molecular_ politics, the politics
of the self, so to speak. I believe it is a mistake -- both Doug's mistake
and the mistake of the "Foucault industry" -- to treat Foucault's ideas
as if they were prescriptions for how to bring about a revolutionary
overthrow of capitalism. I believe that Foucault, like Deleuze, is first
and foremost interested in the question of how to _think_ freedom without
turning it into unfreedom. Or maybe this is not his first and foremost
interest, but one which by virtue of its importance and difficulty forces
most of one's energies into itself.
-m
thing as truth, or the distinction between Truth and truths, but the
question of how not to be shackled by our own idea of "truth". The "truth"
that says that without such self-shackling via "truth" some hypothetical
hell would break loose is no more privileged in this regard than any other
"truth". Does it shackle us? Can it be opened up? One needs to bang
against _its_ limits just as much as against the limits of all other
"truths".
It seems to me important to note (but maybe others will thoroughly
disagree) that the playing field here is _molecular_ politics, the politics
of the self, so to speak. I believe it is a mistake -- both Doug's mistake
and the mistake of the "Foucault industry" -- to treat Foucault's ideas
as if they were prescriptions for how to bring about a revolutionary
overthrow of capitalism. I believe that Foucault, like Deleuze, is first
and foremost interested in the question of how to _think_ freedom without
turning it into unfreedom. Or maybe this is not his first and foremost
interest, but one which by virtue of its importance and difficulty forces
most of one's energies into itself.
-m