--part1_8b.684490b.28313e92_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Katie
The novel by Herve Guibert, "A l'ami qui ne m'a pas sauve la vie" (To the
friend who didn't save my life) is not a book I had heard of. I do no think I
would want to read a book implying Foucaul was (or is) a quasi-religious
icon. Even
if the author refers to non published or little known details about MF when
he was alive (for Karmic balance maybe{?}). I am sure I do not want to read
yet another attack or veneration of Foucault as I have read plenty of both.
For me the move from Archaeology to genealogy typifies the methodolgical
purpose of Foucault's work. The work as Monumental History (see Nietzsche,
Genealogy History) stands alone and in context - . It is a discourse on
discourse. If it were a discourse on the aspirations or ambitions of one
man's perspective the question raised by Nietzsche (who possesses discourse)
may not have reared its ugly head again. This problem, I suggest, would not
have been asked of multi faceted dimensions opened by the power/knowledge
relationships discussed by the genealogical project. This work probably works
better because the archaeological field in general had been excavated during
the late 50's and the ultra-conservative early 60's France. I thought he did
well to bring attention to the hollowness of Universal theories - theories
that would probably create more outsiders, greater marginalisation and
proliferations of otherness if taken more seriously by more people today.
I am unsure whether your sympathies are with Herve or not.
I am not sure if you are saying that Foucault had some prejudice evident in
either his published work or private life. I am not sure either whether you
are implying that he was dishonest(?). Does the fact that Deleuze makes
comments in a footnote about drugs in Theatrum Philosophicum (i.e. LCMP
p.191: What will people think about us) imply that Foucault was also
dishonest about other taboos? (He abandoned a proposed project/book on 'drug'
use).
After all that thanks for the comment. Do you still recommend it to me - can
you convince me it is worth reading?
Cheers EP
--part1_8b.684490b.28313e92_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>Katie
<BR>The novel by Herve Guibert, "A l'ami qui ne m'a pas sauve la vie" (To the
<BR>friend who didn't save my life) is not a book I had heard of. I do no think I
<BR>would want to read a book implying Foucaul was (or is) a quasi-religious
<BR>icon. Even
<BR>if the author refers to non published or little known details about MF when
<BR>he was alive (for Karmic balance maybe{?}). I am sure I do not want to read
<BR>yet another attack or veneration of Foucault as I have read plenty of both.
<BR>For me the move from Archaeology to genealogy typifies the methodolgical
<BR>purpose of Foucault's work. The work as <I>Monumental History</I> (see <I>Nietzsche,
<BR>Genealogy History)</I> stands alone and in context - . It is a discourse on
<BR>discourse. If it were a discourse on the aspirations or ambitions of one
<BR>man's perspective the question raised by Nietzsche (who possesses discourse)
<BR>may not have reared its ugly head again. This problem, I suggest, would not
<BR>have been asked of multi faceted dimensions opened by the power/knowledge
<BR>relationships discussed by the genealogical project. This work probably works
<BR>better because the archaeological field in general had been excavated during
<BR>the late 50's and the ultra-conservative early 60's France. I thought he did
<BR>well to bring attention to the hollowness of Universal theories - theories
<BR>that would probably create more outsiders, greater marginalisation and
<BR>proliferations of otherness if taken more seriously by more people today.
<BR>I am unsure whether your sympathies are with Herve or not.
<BR>I am not sure if you are saying that Foucault had some prejudice evident in
<BR>either his published work or private life. I am not sure either whether you
<BR>are implying that he was dishonest(?). Does the fact that Deleuze makes
<BR>comments in a footnote about drugs in <I>Theatrum Philosophicum (i</I>.e. LCMP
<BR>p.191: What will people think about us) imply that Foucault was also
<BR>dishonest about other taboos? (He abandoned a proposed project/book on 'drug'
<BR>use).
<BR>After all that thanks for the comment. Do you still recommend it to me - can
<BR>you convince me it is worth reading?
<BR>Cheers EP</FONT></HTML>
--part1_8b.684490b.28313e92_boundary--