On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Stephen D'Arcy wrote:
> I just realized that I inadvertantly mischaracterized John Ransom's
> characterization of Foucault. I claimed that he used "What is
> Enlightenment?" to defend the idea that Foucault advocates
> transgression in 1963. On re-reading his remarks I realize that he
> does not in fact do this. On the contrary, he only summarizes the
> 1963 text, says that it has implications broader than for Bataille's
> work, and goes on to suggest that, decades later, Foucault says
> various thing about transgression, but these do not (John says)
> include any general advocacy of transgression.
>
> I'm very sorry. I certainly wasn't being malicious or anything.
>
> Steve D.
>
>
Well, you may want to hold the apology back for a minute because the thing
I admit to being very struck by is the similarity between the discussion
of limit-transgression in 1963's "Preface" and 1984's "WIE" discussion of
borders and transgressions.
Aren't they really dealing with the same topic?
On page 45 of "WIE" as I quoted earlier F says the new kind of
philosophical ethos he wants to promote is something he calls the
"limit-attitude." He then says (same page, bottom) that we need to produce
a "practical critique that takes the form of a possible transgression."
He then says on the next page (46) that criticism should not be
transcendental.
Compare this to "Preface," which reads to me like a broad, abstract,
theoretical treatment of limit-transgression given that the usual link
between transgression and "transcendence" has been broken.
And so I *was* trying to say that I thought there were strong echoes
between the essay in 1963 and the one in 1984. Whether F intended these
echoes is impossible for me to say and maybe not even relevant. I also
think it could be possible that you are right about the different stages
in F's work, but that may not speak against the kinds of parallels I'm
trying to draw.
--John
> I just realized that I inadvertantly mischaracterized John Ransom's
> characterization of Foucault. I claimed that he used "What is
> Enlightenment?" to defend the idea that Foucault advocates
> transgression in 1963. On re-reading his remarks I realize that he
> does not in fact do this. On the contrary, he only summarizes the
> 1963 text, says that it has implications broader than for Bataille's
> work, and goes on to suggest that, decades later, Foucault says
> various thing about transgression, but these do not (John says)
> include any general advocacy of transgression.
>
> I'm very sorry. I certainly wasn't being malicious or anything.
>
> Steve D.
>
>
Well, you may want to hold the apology back for a minute because the thing
I admit to being very struck by is the similarity between the discussion
of limit-transgression in 1963's "Preface" and 1984's "WIE" discussion of
borders and transgressions.
Aren't they really dealing with the same topic?
On page 45 of "WIE" as I quoted earlier F says the new kind of
philosophical ethos he wants to promote is something he calls the
"limit-attitude." He then says (same page, bottom) that we need to produce
a "practical critique that takes the form of a possible transgression."
He then says on the next page (46) that criticism should not be
transcendental.
Compare this to "Preface," which reads to me like a broad, abstract,
theoretical treatment of limit-transgression given that the usual link
between transgression and "transcendence" has been broken.
And so I *was* trying to say that I thought there were strong echoes
between the essay in 1963 and the one in 1984. Whether F intended these
echoes is impossible for me to say and maybe not even relevant. I also
think it could be possible that you are right about the different stages
in F's work, but that may not speak against the kinds of parallels I'm
trying to draw.
--John