Reg,
It also seems to me that the background assumption of the kind of
biography Miller wrote, perhaps of biography as a genre, is that there is
some really deep way in which everything one does or says hangs together.
We all recognize that we play different roles calling for different masks
and so on, but Foucault wanted to push that insight a bit further. Thus
in the interview that begins _The Final Foucault_, Foucault comments that
the subject
is not a substance; it is a form and this form is not above
all or always identical to itself. You do not have towards
yourself the same kind of relationships when you constitute
yourself as a political subject who goes and votes or speaks
up in a meeting, and when you try to fulfill your desires in
a sexual relationship. There are no doubt some relationships
and some interferences between these different kinds of
subject but we are not in the presence of the same kind of
subject. In each case, we play, we establish with one's self
some different form of relationship. (_FF_, p. 10)
My problem with Miller, then, is that he assumes that one kind of
relationship with oneself (sexuality and the will-to-death) colors,
informs, determines the rest of what Foucault does in terms of politics
and writing.
--John
On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Reg Lilly wrote:
> Miller's book is crammed with useful information, and I do think that it's
> possible to write a 'life as philosophy' book, as I think probably Miller has
> tried to do. However, just like writing a 'literature as philosophy" of 'art as
> philosophy' require some real analysis of literature/art, so too does a 'life as
> philosophy' require some real analysis of life -- which should be not confused
> with a biographizing that begins by having presumed what life is all about. I
> don't think we get much insight into life from Miller, rather, its more
> voyeristic.
> Reg
>
> jon roffe wrote:
> >
> > I take your point, Reg. Nothing annoys me more than psychological
> > reductionism
> >
> > However, I still wish to query whether this is what Miller does? Do you
> > think that there is not perhaps another reading of the book, which sees
> > Miller as describing 'life as philosophy'?
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
It also seems to me that the background assumption of the kind of
biography Miller wrote, perhaps of biography as a genre, is that there is
some really deep way in which everything one does or says hangs together.
We all recognize that we play different roles calling for different masks
and so on, but Foucault wanted to push that insight a bit further. Thus
in the interview that begins _The Final Foucault_, Foucault comments that
the subject
is not a substance; it is a form and this form is not above
all or always identical to itself. You do not have towards
yourself the same kind of relationships when you constitute
yourself as a political subject who goes and votes or speaks
up in a meeting, and when you try to fulfill your desires in
a sexual relationship. There are no doubt some relationships
and some interferences between these different kinds of
subject but we are not in the presence of the same kind of
subject. In each case, we play, we establish with one's self
some different form of relationship. (_FF_, p. 10)
My problem with Miller, then, is that he assumes that one kind of
relationship with oneself (sexuality and the will-to-death) colors,
informs, determines the rest of what Foucault does in terms of politics
and writing.
--John
On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Reg Lilly wrote:
> Miller's book is crammed with useful information, and I do think that it's
> possible to write a 'life as philosophy' book, as I think probably Miller has
> tried to do. However, just like writing a 'literature as philosophy" of 'art as
> philosophy' require some real analysis of literature/art, so too does a 'life as
> philosophy' require some real analysis of life -- which should be not confused
> with a biographizing that begins by having presumed what life is all about. I
> don't think we get much insight into life from Miller, rather, its more
> voyeristic.
> Reg
>
> jon roffe wrote:
> >
> > I take your point, Reg. Nothing annoys me more than psychological
> > reductionism
> >
> > However, I still wish to query whether this is what Miller does? Do you
> > think that there is not perhaps another reading of the book, which sees
> > Miller as describing 'life as philosophy'?
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>