On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Flannon Jackson wrote:
> Actually its not mystical at all but fairly traditional. Provided that
> tradition is understood as an implicaiton of inter-textuality. Its not
> even necessary to go so far as to try and formulate a geneological
> relatationwhip that would in some way situate Foucualt within a set of
> specific discursive practices because what we have here is a matter of
> straight intellectual history. But then again, perhaps Lithoi is not
> such a pedant as has been supposed.
>
> Such musings, I suppose, will have to be left for another time. For the
> moment lets try another riddle: the will to power is not a willing _for_
> power.
>
> Flannon
>
Because will to power serves life?
--John
> Actually its not mystical at all but fairly traditional. Provided that
> tradition is understood as an implicaiton of inter-textuality. Its not
> even necessary to go so far as to try and formulate a geneological
> relatationwhip that would in some way situate Foucualt within a set of
> specific discursive practices because what we have here is a matter of
> straight intellectual history. But then again, perhaps Lithoi is not
> such a pedant as has been supposed.
>
> Such musings, I suppose, will have to be left for another time. For the
> moment lets try another riddle: the will to power is not a willing _for_
> power.
>
> Flannon
>
Because will to power serves life?
--John