I have followes your discussion with eagerness. As i see it the point of
departure for
ypur debate was the question To WHAT EXTENT DOES F. SAY POWER CONSTRUCTS
THE SUBJECT. As I see it Foucault is a real constructivist, but not a
constructivist in
the Kantian sense, thogh there are some resemblances.
. For Kant constructivism is based on his disticntion between the outer and
the inner realm. Foucault construcitivsm can be observed best
in his method: archaelogy. Oliver and Bernauer descirbe thi9s metihyod as a
historized version of
Kantian critique where "what is given" and what is natural is put in brackets.
It can be described as
a sort of agnostic realism and as a nominalism. Power-relations institutes an
onthology, yes, but an
reduced onthology. The real is related to human capabilities. Power inscribes
itself on the surface on
the body and gives a new FORM on human life. Life has no essential form. The
soul is the
effect and instrument of a political anatomy, the soul is the prison of the
body. My impression is
hat Foucalt descirbes a human being which exists in discontinutity where the
form of human life
is given in the open dialectic between disciplinized life and life in revolt.
FORM is given. (the human being
is being constructed) , but is temporary, and construed by political power
(microphysics).
I suspect this is a sort of reductionism. A problem is the inconsequence between
hos his political
ontology functions as a sort of metaphysics and his dispensation from an
original form. Nature does not
relate to the form of life of the human being. There is more to ontology than
power and politics. To have a body mean
that I am related to the natural world. Before I even can think of - or are
related to any power or politics nature
has constructed me. I would like to citate the danish Paul Løgstrup: Human
construction brings nothing new.
Construction resedes from life it self. from pre-cultural dimensions, such as
embodiment, language (as embodiment)
, emotions, art, realtions to the cosmic. ), It means that life has an original
form whichs is construed by a
cosmic phenomenality. Somethng is given in life and what who gives itself to
humnan life and construes it (I would rather
says "create" is greater and more decisive than power-relations. So my
conclusion is : form precedes the construction of
human form. Human construction adds nothing new to life- only relates to whatis
already given.
Dag Helge Moldenhagen. college lecturer Norway
departure for
ypur debate was the question To WHAT EXTENT DOES F. SAY POWER CONSTRUCTS
THE SUBJECT. As I see it Foucault is a real constructivist, but not a
constructivist in
the Kantian sense, thogh there are some resemblances.
. For Kant constructivism is based on his disticntion between the outer and
the inner realm. Foucault construcitivsm can be observed best
in his method: archaelogy. Oliver and Bernauer descirbe thi9s metihyod as a
historized version of
Kantian critique where "what is given" and what is natural is put in brackets.
It can be described as
a sort of agnostic realism and as a nominalism. Power-relations institutes an
onthology, yes, but an
reduced onthology. The real is related to human capabilities. Power inscribes
itself on the surface on
the body and gives a new FORM on human life. Life has no essential form. The
soul is the
effect and instrument of a political anatomy, the soul is the prison of the
body. My impression is
hat Foucalt descirbes a human being which exists in discontinutity where the
form of human life
is given in the open dialectic between disciplinized life and life in revolt.
FORM is given. (the human being
is being constructed) , but is temporary, and construed by political power
(microphysics).
I suspect this is a sort of reductionism. A problem is the inconsequence between
hos his political
ontology functions as a sort of metaphysics and his dispensation from an
original form. Nature does not
relate to the form of life of the human being. There is more to ontology than
power and politics. To have a body mean
that I am related to the natural world. Before I even can think of - or are
related to any power or politics nature
has constructed me. I would like to citate the danish Paul Løgstrup: Human
construction brings nothing new.
Construction resedes from life it self. from pre-cultural dimensions, such as
embodiment, language (as embodiment)
, emotions, art, realtions to the cosmic. ), It means that life has an original
form whichs is construed by a
cosmic phenomenality. Somethng is given in life and what who gives itself to
humnan life and construes it (I would rather
says "create" is greater and more decisive than power-relations. So my
conclusion is : form precedes the construction of
human form. Human construction adds nothing new to life- only relates to whatis
already given.
Dag Helge Moldenhagen. college lecturer Norway