This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_004B_01BF1B9F.210FD920
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Loren,=20
There are a number of interesting issues around the Foucault/Derrida =
relation. Tom has mentioned a number of references, but to make sense of =
Derrida's critique of Foucault in Writing and Difference you really have =
to read the French Folie et deraison/Histoire de la folie, as the =
passage (on Descartes) he mentions does not appear in the English =
translation.=20
If you don't have time to read books on the subject (like Roy Boyne, =
Foucault and Derrida: The Other Side of Reason, Christopher Norris, =
Derrida, or Edward Said, The World, The Text, The Critic) then you could =
look at some articles:-
Robert D=92Amico "Text and Context: Derrida and Foucault on Descartes", =
in John Fekete (ed.), The Structural Allegory: Reconstructive Encounters =
with the New French Thought, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, =
1984
Peter Flaherty, "(Con)textual Contest: Derrida and Foucault on Madness =
and the Cartesian Subject", in Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol 16 =
No 1, March 1986
Deborah Cook, "Madness and the Cogito: Derrida=92s Critique of Folie et =
D=E9raison", in Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, Vol 21 =
No 2, May 1990
Warren Montag, "Spirits Armed and Unarmed: Derrida's Specters of Marx", =
in Michael Sprinker (ed.), Ghostly Demarcations: A Symposium on Jacques =
Derrida's Specters of Marx, London: Verso, 1999.
F's The Archaeology of Knowledge is i think also useful for his critique =
of Derrida. One of the key issues is the textual or contextual approach =
to reading.=20
You wrote:-
>It seems to me that Foucault is less interested in exposing the =
attempted >centers of western metaphysics and instead (obviously) =
prefers a >geneological approach.
Do you want to explain that a bit more? My reading of genealogy - as =
historical ontology, explained to an extent on this list a while back - =
is that it is precisely concerned with metaphysics.
BTW - Derrida has also refused the labels postmodernism and =
poststructuralism.=20
Best wishes
Stuart
------=_NextPart_000_004B_01BF1B9F.210FD920
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 =
Transitional//EN">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT size=3D3>Loren, </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT size=3D3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT size=3D3>There are a number of =
interesting issues=20
around the Foucault/Derrida relation. Tom has mentioned a number of =
references,=20
but to make sense of Derrida's critique of Foucault in Writing and =
Difference=20
you really have to read the French Folie et deraison/Histoire de la =
folie, as=20
the passage (on Descartes) he mentions does not appear in the English=20
translation. </FONT></FONT><FONT size=3D3></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT size=3D3></FONT></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3>If you don't have time to read books on the subject =
(like Roy=20
Boyne, <I>Foucault and Derrida: The Other Side of Reason</I>, =
Christopher=20
Norris, <I>Derrida, </I>or Edward Said, <I>The World, The Text, The =
Critic</I>)=20
then you could look at some articles:-</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3><I></I></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3>Robert D’Amico "Text and Context: Derrida =
and=20
Foucault on Descartes", in John Fekete (ed.), <I>The Structural =
Allegory:=20
Reconstructive Encounters with the New French Thought</I>, Minneapolis:=20
University of Minnesota Press, 1984</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3>Peter Flaherty, "(Con)textual Contest: Derrida =
and=20
Foucault on Madness and the Cartesian Subject", in <I>Philosophy of =
the=20
Social Sciences</I>, Vol 16 No 1, March 1986</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3>Deborah Cook, "Madness and the Cogito: =
Derrida’s=20
Critique of <I>Folie et Déraison</I>", in <I>Journal of the =
British=20
Society for Phenomenology</I>, Vol 21 No 2, May 1990</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3>Warren Montag, "Spirits Armed and Unarmed: =
Derrida's=20
<EM>Specters of Marx</EM>", in Michael Sprinker (ed.), <EM>Ghostly=20
Demarcations: A Symposium on Jacques Derrida's </EM>Specters of Marx, =
London:=20
Verso, 1999.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3>F's <I>The Archaeology of Knowledge</I> is i think =
also useful=20
for his critique of Derrida. One of the key issues is the textual or =
contextual=20
approach to reading. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3><FONT face=3DArial></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT size=3D3>You wrote:-</FONT></FONT><FONT =
size=3D3></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D3>>It seems to me that Foucault =
is less=20
interested in exposing the attempted >centers of western metaphysics =
and=20
instead (obviously) prefers a >geneological =
approach.</FONT></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D3></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D3></FONT></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D3>Do you want to explain that a bit =
more? My=20
reading of genealogy - as historical ontology, explained to an extent on =
this=20
list a while back - is that it is precisely concerned with=20
metaphysics.</FONT></FONT><FONT size=3D3></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D3></FONT></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT size=3D3>BTW - Derrida has also refused =
the labels=20
postmodernism and poststructuralism. </FONT></FONT><FONT =
size=3D3></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D3>Best wishes</FONT></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D3></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D3></FONT></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3>Stuart</FONT></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_004B_01BF1B9F.210FD920--
------=_NextPart_000_004B_01BF1B9F.210FD920
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Loren,=20
There are a number of interesting issues around the Foucault/Derrida =
relation. Tom has mentioned a number of references, but to make sense of =
Derrida's critique of Foucault in Writing and Difference you really have =
to read the French Folie et deraison/Histoire de la folie, as the =
passage (on Descartes) he mentions does not appear in the English =
translation.=20
If you don't have time to read books on the subject (like Roy Boyne, =
Foucault and Derrida: The Other Side of Reason, Christopher Norris, =
Derrida, or Edward Said, The World, The Text, The Critic) then you could =
look at some articles:-
Robert D=92Amico "Text and Context: Derrida and Foucault on Descartes", =
in John Fekete (ed.), The Structural Allegory: Reconstructive Encounters =
with the New French Thought, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, =
1984
Peter Flaherty, "(Con)textual Contest: Derrida and Foucault on Madness =
and the Cartesian Subject", in Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol 16 =
No 1, March 1986
Deborah Cook, "Madness and the Cogito: Derrida=92s Critique of Folie et =
D=E9raison", in Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, Vol 21 =
No 2, May 1990
Warren Montag, "Spirits Armed and Unarmed: Derrida's Specters of Marx", =
in Michael Sprinker (ed.), Ghostly Demarcations: A Symposium on Jacques =
Derrida's Specters of Marx, London: Verso, 1999.
F's The Archaeology of Knowledge is i think also useful for his critique =
of Derrida. One of the key issues is the textual or contextual approach =
to reading.=20
You wrote:-
>It seems to me that Foucault is less interested in exposing the =
attempted >centers of western metaphysics and instead (obviously) =
prefers a >geneological approach.
Do you want to explain that a bit more? My reading of genealogy - as =
historical ontology, explained to an extent on this list a while back - =
is that it is precisely concerned with metaphysics.
BTW - Derrida has also refused the labels postmodernism and =
poststructuralism.=20
Best wishes
Stuart
------=_NextPart_000_004B_01BF1B9F.210FD920
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 =
Transitional//EN">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT size=3D3>Loren, </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT size=3D3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT size=3D3>There are a number of =
interesting issues=20
around the Foucault/Derrida relation. Tom has mentioned a number of =
references,=20
but to make sense of Derrida's critique of Foucault in Writing and =
Difference=20
you really have to read the French Folie et deraison/Histoire de la =
folie, as=20
the passage (on Descartes) he mentions does not appear in the English=20
translation. </FONT></FONT><FONT size=3D3></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT size=3D3></FONT></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3>If you don't have time to read books on the subject =
(like Roy=20
Boyne, <I>Foucault and Derrida: The Other Side of Reason</I>, =
Christopher=20
Norris, <I>Derrida, </I>or Edward Said, <I>The World, The Text, The =
Critic</I>)=20
then you could look at some articles:-</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3><I></I></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3>Robert D’Amico "Text and Context: Derrida =
and=20
Foucault on Descartes", in John Fekete (ed.), <I>The Structural =
Allegory:=20
Reconstructive Encounters with the New French Thought</I>, Minneapolis:=20
University of Minnesota Press, 1984</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3>Peter Flaherty, "(Con)textual Contest: Derrida =
and=20
Foucault on Madness and the Cartesian Subject", in <I>Philosophy of =
the=20
Social Sciences</I>, Vol 16 No 1, March 1986</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3>Deborah Cook, "Madness and the Cogito: =
Derrida’s=20
Critique of <I>Folie et Déraison</I>", in <I>Journal of the =
British=20
Society for Phenomenology</I>, Vol 21 No 2, May 1990</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3>Warren Montag, "Spirits Armed and Unarmed: =
Derrida's=20
<EM>Specters of Marx</EM>", in Michael Sprinker (ed.), <EM>Ghostly=20
Demarcations: A Symposium on Jacques Derrida's </EM>Specters of Marx, =
London:=20
Verso, 1999.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3>F's <I>The Archaeology of Knowledge</I> is i think =
also useful=20
for his critique of Derrida. One of the key issues is the textual or =
contextual=20
approach to reading. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3><FONT face=3DArial></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT size=3D3>You wrote:-</FONT></FONT><FONT =
size=3D3></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D3>>It seems to me that Foucault =
is less=20
interested in exposing the attempted >centers of western metaphysics =
and=20
instead (obviously) prefers a >geneological =
approach.</FONT></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D3></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D3></FONT></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D3>Do you want to explain that a bit =
more? My=20
reading of genealogy - as historical ontology, explained to an extent on =
this=20
list a while back - is that it is precisely concerned with=20
metaphysics.</FONT></FONT><FONT size=3D3></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D3></FONT></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT size=3D3>BTW - Derrida has also refused =
the labels=20
postmodernism and poststructuralism. </FONT></FONT><FONT =
size=3D3></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D3>Best wishes</FONT></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D3></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D3></FONT></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D3>Stuart</FONT></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_004B_01BF1B9F.210FD920--