>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=20
>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=20
>"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=
=20
>and the mistake of the "Foucault industry" -- to treat Foucault's ideas=20
>as if they were prescriptions for how to bring about a revolutionary=20
>overthrow of capitalism. I believe that Foucault, like Deleuze, is first=
=20
>and foremost interested in the question of how to _think_ freedom without=
=20
>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=
=20
>most of one's energies into itself.=20
>
>
>-m=20
=20
I agree. You've got to the point.
But, I'm adressing you an invitation to come back to what you have focused=
before.
This text and theme, which could be placed along Foucault=92s interest on=
litterature and his chief discussion on being and textual practices is=
definetely non-obsolete and very difficult.
I would like to stress the passage Malgosia Askanas refered to (back to=
literacy and the interpretation problems such superb text fournishes us=
all). I do think that language and transgression, I mean the relationship=
between both, is a major cornerstone we should run through. It is difficult=
to speak of language of trangression or even transgression as language and=
at the same time be close to Foucault=92s statements. There seems to be an=
historical rupture which is refered to, closely bound to nietzschean=
interpretation of God=92s Death (This text provides us one of the most=
interesting versions of F. interpretation of this nietzschean problem,=
please compare it to F. thesis on kant=92s antropology, or heideggerian or=
Deleuzian versions) but also very much related to an effort on re-thinking =
marxist anthropological postulates exactly along the line Bataille had=
already developed. How sexuality has posed in a different way the question=
of limits, boundaries and impossibility, that societies based on sacred and=
theology sustained by means of a God alive in his holy inexistence? There=
is a shift from anthropology in a philosophical sense (Zarathustra versus=
Kant=92s Frage: What is man?) to a social and structuralistic sense=
(Potlach f. ex.), which can be enounced by means of an onthological or=
maybe pseudo-onthological problem: =93the being of litterature=94. This=
problem can be traced along the sixties and Raymond Roussel or Les Mots et=
les Choses could be considered a sample, very much axed on this problem.
I compared the last sentence of the english translation, provided by the=
list therefore I don=92t know it, with Foucault=92s text in its original=
publication and found it obscure and ambiguous: language of dialetics is=
not to be assigned to anything, but we should wonder if sexuality (and=
transgression or erotism, which are defined as different attitudes toward=
the being of the limit) would be able to meet, join, capture language and=
produce a different couple. Maybe it is not just a translation problem.
It would be enriching to stay in tune with the text, what is in fact very=
difficult. Soon I=92ll send a couple of doubts I=92m working on.
Thanx.
Estellita-Lins.
>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=20
>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=20
>"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=
=20
>and the mistake of the "Foucault industry" -- to treat Foucault's ideas=20
>as if they were prescriptions for how to bring about a revolutionary=20
>overthrow of capitalism. I believe that Foucault, like Deleuze, is first=
=20
>and foremost interested in the question of how to _think_ freedom without=
=20
>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=
=20
>most of one's energies into itself.=20
>
>
>-m=20
=20
I agree. You've got to the point.
But, I'm adressing you an invitation to come back to what you have focused=
before.
This text and theme, which could be placed along Foucault=92s interest on=
litterature and his chief discussion on being and textual practices is=
definetely non-obsolete and very difficult.
I would like to stress the passage Malgosia Askanas refered to (back to=
literacy and the interpretation problems such superb text fournishes us=
all). I do think that language and transgression, I mean the relationship=
between both, is a major cornerstone we should run through. It is difficult=
to speak of language of trangression or even transgression as language and=
at the same time be close to Foucault=92s statements. There seems to be an=
historical rupture which is refered to, closely bound to nietzschean=
interpretation of God=92s Death (This text provides us one of the most=
interesting versions of F. interpretation of this nietzschean problem,=
please compare it to F. thesis on kant=92s antropology, or heideggerian or=
Deleuzian versions) but also very much related to an effort on re-thinking =
marxist anthropological postulates exactly along the line Bataille had=
already developed. How sexuality has posed in a different way the question=
of limits, boundaries and impossibility, that societies based on sacred and=
theology sustained by means of a God alive in his holy inexistence? There=
is a shift from anthropology in a philosophical sense (Zarathustra versus=
Kant=92s Frage: What is man?) to a social and structuralistic sense=
(Potlach f. ex.), which can be enounced by means of an onthological or=
maybe pseudo-onthological problem: =93the being of litterature=94. This=
problem can be traced along the sixties and Raymond Roussel or Les Mots et=
les Choses could be considered a sample, very much axed on this problem.
I compared the last sentence of the english translation, provided by the=
list therefore I don=92t know it, with Foucault=92s text in its original=
publication and found it obscure and ambiguous: language of dialetics is=
not to be assigned to anything, but we should wonder if sexuality (and=
transgression or erotism, which are defined as different attitudes toward=
the being of the limit) would be able to meet, join, capture language and=
produce a different couple. Maybe it is not just a translation problem.
It would be enriching to stay in tune with the text, what is in fact very=
difficult. Soon I=92ll send a couple of doubts I=92m working on.
Thanx.
Estellita-Lins.