>are you confusing what foucault wrote with the meaning of what he wrote
>after it was published? it seems to me that most people would agree that
>foucault wrote, say, _discipline and pushish_. intersubjectively, it is
>"fact." however, after he sent D&P off for publication, the text
>exists, independently, for public consumption and (re)construction.
I absolutely agree. But there is a further level which is often denied in
much postmodern thought.
1) Foucault' subjectivity. What he meant to say. This can't simply be
dismissed or else how do you account for the many interviews he did
attempting to clarify his thoughts? Or the many instances where he claims
that the common understanding of his work is a violent distortion of what he
meant? (produced by the Foucault industry, which I presume everyone knows by
now I don't like very much, while at the same time being quite into Foucault).
So we have the:
1) authors intention. This is fairly much in the authors control, not
completely due to prior socailisation, but as Spivak argues Foucault must
have had a certain 'freedom of subjectivity'.
2) the level of the marks which constitute the text. To a certain
extent these are more a social matter. We are bound by the languages we use.
Murray graphically illustrated how this can go wrong in having to correct
one of his posts. So we know what we want to say but often don't get it right.
3) The level of the public dissemination of Foucault. This is almost
totally beyond the control of the author. But not totally, as Foucault's
attempts in interviews to correct misunderstanding display.
>
>btw, i like the point you make about distinguishing between ontology and
>epistemology. your claim that "'Being' is not dependent upon 'human
>beings' or their understandings of 'being' for its existence" rings true
>if you buy into the metaphysics of dasein. from a social constructivist
>perspective, "Being" or "being" is WHOLLY dependent on human beings.
Sorry, mike, you will have to unpack this for me. too many beings, Beings
and 'beings' floating around, and the odd dasein thrown in. Still, what I
can say is that I reject any form of idealist metaphysics; linguistic,
conceptual, absolute, empirical or mystical (which is essentally what they
all boil down to).
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------