Just one point below:
----- Original Message -----
From: Michal Klincewicz <michal@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 10:26 PM
Subject: RE: transcription errors in Foucault
[snip snip snip]
> I had trouble following Deleuze's arguments in 'Foucault'--the 'fold' is
> still shrouded in a haze for me--but I cannot see his commentary referring
> to anything particularly 'vitalist' about F.
My support in the article for the claim that Deleuze has a 'vitalist'
reading of Foucault goes like this:
[begin excerpt from article]
Deleuze begins the vitalist reading in Foucault. He is discussing the
significance of Foucault's argument in Volonté de savoir concerning the era
of bio-politics. As the state and various other agencies struggle to get a
hold on and manipulate "life" as a variable, resistance from the objects of
this effort is called forth as well.
Quand le pouvoir devient bio-pouvoir, la résistance devient pouvoir de la
vie, pouvoir-vital qui ne se laisse pas arrêter aux espèces, aux milieux et
aux chemins de tel ou tel diagramme. La force venue du dehors, n'est-ce pas
une certaine idée de la Vie, un certain vitalism où culmine la pensée de
Foucault? La vie n'est-elle pas cette capacité de résister de la force?[see
endnote below for translation]
[endnote] Gilles Deleuze, _Foucault_ (Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1986),
p. 98. "When power becomes bio-power, resistance becomes the power of life,
a vital power that cannot be restricted by species, nor by the contexts and
paths of such and such a diagram. This force that comes from the outside,
isn't it a certain idea of Life, a kind of vitalism that acts as the
culmination of the thought of Foucault? Isn't life precisely this capacity
to resist force?"
[end excerpt from article]
I appreciate and am learning from the critical commentary.
Better than Deleuze, in my view, as a commentator on Foucault, is Veyne.
-- John
> His phenomenological remarks
> seemed to have more relevance to his own philosophy than to F.'s. Could
> someone help me see? Why is Ransom's paper on target with respect to
> Deleuze?
>
> ______________________________________________
> FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
> Sign up at http://www.mail.com?sr=mc.mk.mcm.tag001
>
----- Original Message -----
From: Michal Klincewicz <michal@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 10:26 PM
Subject: RE: transcription errors in Foucault
[snip snip snip]
> I had trouble following Deleuze's arguments in 'Foucault'--the 'fold' is
> still shrouded in a haze for me--but I cannot see his commentary referring
> to anything particularly 'vitalist' about F.
My support in the article for the claim that Deleuze has a 'vitalist'
reading of Foucault goes like this:
[begin excerpt from article]
Deleuze begins the vitalist reading in Foucault. He is discussing the
significance of Foucault's argument in Volonté de savoir concerning the era
of bio-politics. As the state and various other agencies struggle to get a
hold on and manipulate "life" as a variable, resistance from the objects of
this effort is called forth as well.
Quand le pouvoir devient bio-pouvoir, la résistance devient pouvoir de la
vie, pouvoir-vital qui ne se laisse pas arrêter aux espèces, aux milieux et
aux chemins de tel ou tel diagramme. La force venue du dehors, n'est-ce pas
une certaine idée de la Vie, un certain vitalism où culmine la pensée de
Foucault? La vie n'est-elle pas cette capacité de résister de la force?[see
endnote below for translation]
[endnote] Gilles Deleuze, _Foucault_ (Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1986),
p. 98. "When power becomes bio-power, resistance becomes the power of life,
a vital power that cannot be restricted by species, nor by the contexts and
paths of such and such a diagram. This force that comes from the outside,
isn't it a certain idea of Life, a kind of vitalism that acts as the
culmination of the thought of Foucault? Isn't life precisely this capacity
to resist force?"
[end excerpt from article]
I appreciate and am learning from the critical commentary.
Better than Deleuze, in my view, as a commentator on Foucault, is Veyne.
-- John
> His phenomenological remarks
> seemed to have more relevance to his own philosophy than to F.'s. Could
> someone help me see? Why is Ransom's paper on target with respect to
> Deleuze?
>
> ______________________________________________
> FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
> Sign up at http://www.mail.com?sr=mc.mk.mcm.tag001
>