<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Stuart</P>
<P>Thanks a lot for your last post. I was amazed how much you were able to extract from my obscure and condensed formulations. It speakes of your seriousness and encourages students like me.</P>
<P>I think there was no point in your post on which I would disagree with you. It pretty much confirms my understanding and reassures me.</P>
<P>However I would like to more from you on difference between 'concept' of event in Foucault and Heidegger. Still my instinctive feeling is that Heideggerian conception of event still carries lot of load of Metaphysics or something like it (do not know what:)</P>
<P>On minor points, recently i remeber reading in more than one places in Foucualt's interviews in which he says that he does not know Being and Time much, what you think of these comments?</P>
<P>I do not remeber you mentioning influence of Kant book on Foucualt. When I was at Warwick I had tried to read Heidegger's Kant book along with The Order of Things and I remeber having feeling of amazment at how much of Kant's book (at least its spirit) I could see running benath The Order of Things. Unfortunately I did not take any notes at that time. I just thought that it was a crazy idea. I had just read before that an article by Christopher Norris in which he had dubbed Focault as an arch enemy of Kant or something to that effect. Just few boring thoughts from the past:)</P>
<P>Thanks again for your pervious mail</P>
<P>regards</P>
<P>ali<BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>----Original Message Follows----
<DIV></DIV>From: Stuart Elden <STUART.ELDEN@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<DIV></DIV>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>Subject: Fwd: RE: Il faut defendre Foucault
<DIV></DIV>Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 14:29:34 +0100
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Ali
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>I'm glad the previous post was useful. And many thanks for the Veyne
<DIV></DIV>citation. I think that I know the piece you mention, but i will follow
<DIV></DIV>this up.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>I think the issue around Heidegger is important, but I think the reason
<DIV></DIV>we seemed to disagree is that I read your first post as saying
<DIV></DIV>Heidegger is not concerned with 'being' but 'primarily about Being of
<DIV></DIV>beings'; your clarification mentions that you said/meant not 'beings'
<DIV></DIV>but 'Being of beings'. That 's' is of course central. Heidegger's
<DIV></DIV>concern is always with being (singular, and no article) not beings or a
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>being. When he does analyse _a being_ it is to gain access to the
<DIV></DIV>question of being.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>The first post made it seem he was only interested in being if it was
<DIV></DIV>of a being, in the second formulation it is obvious he is concerned
<DIV></DIV>with beings only in their being. Hope that's cleared up the issue.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>As a subsidiary point I try to avoid capitalisation in translation of
<DIV></DIV>Heidegger's key terms, to my mind that reifies or even deifies them.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>To clarify this point further, I consider
<DIV></DIV>> Foucault and Heidegger as not only doing historical ontology but also
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> relational ontology. In this context I had used Being of beings to
<DIV></DIV>> refer to the whole web of relations existing at a particular time. As
<DIV></DIV>I
<DIV></DIV>> understand, the difference between Foucault and Heidegger is that
<DIV></DIV>while > Foucault does not see any conception of Being beyond different
<DIV></DIV>web of
<DIV></DIV>> relations existing through out history Heidegger sees the possibility
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> of the manifestation of Being beyond these existing web of relations.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> Athough he was increasingly pessimistic about such a possibility at
<DIV></DIV>the end of his career. I am not sure how much this understanding is
<DIV></DIV>seconded by careful and detailed reading of Heidegger's text but this
<DIV></DIV>was in my mind when I said that Heidegger question was not about
<DIV></DIV>beings
<DIV></DIV>> but Being of beings.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>I can see the point you're making now. I think Heidegger abandons the
<DIV></DIV>idea that there might be such as thing as fundamental ontology, that is,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>unhistorical, quite early on. The closest he comes to it in the later
<DIV></DIV>period would be in the Beitraege, or Zeit und Sein, but here too he
<DIV></DIV>recognises that to say being _is_ X (i.e. time, or later Ereignis)
<DIV></DIV>would be simply a continuation of metaphysics. Rather he looks at what
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>allows being, that is the notion of Ereignis, 'event' or 'propriation'.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>What I think is extremely important for Foucault is how Heidegger
<DIV></DIV>investigates the tradition to see what understanding of being held sway,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>to see what conditions of possibility there were for different
<DIV></DIV>interpretations of the political, of space, of technology, of art, etc.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>That history of being, or the historical investigation of conditions of
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>possibility is a historicisation of the problematic of Being and Time.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>That's in essence what I mean by historical ontology, which is
<DIV></DIV>relational (synchronic?) as well as historical (diachronic).
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>So, sure, there's no attempt in Foucault to find a manifestation of
<DIV></DIV>being outside of these relations, it's a problematic point in Heidegger
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>too. My sense is that Foucault was far more interested in Heidegger's
<DIV></DIV>work from around the mid 1930s on than simply in Being and Time. Letter
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>on Humanism for example, and the Nietzsche book - as Althusser says,
<DIV></DIV>the Letter was crucial for a whole generation of French thinkers in
<DIV></DIV>freeing themselves of the influence/power of Sartre. Here was a way to
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>criticise Sartre, but also a way to utilise Heidegger without the
<DIV></DIV>misleading existentialist jargon that was only a minor part of
<DIV></DIV>Heidegger's work.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>That's all for now
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Cheers
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Stuart
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>--
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></html>
<P>Stuart</P>
<P>Thanks a lot for your last post. I was amazed how much you were able to extract from my obscure and condensed formulations. It speakes of your seriousness and encourages students like me.</P>
<P>I think there was no point in your post on which I would disagree with you. It pretty much confirms my understanding and reassures me.</P>
<P>However I would like to more from you on difference between 'concept' of event in Foucault and Heidegger. Still my instinctive feeling is that Heideggerian conception of event still carries lot of load of Metaphysics or something like it (do not know what:)</P>
<P>On minor points, recently i remeber reading in more than one places in Foucualt's interviews in which he says that he does not know Being and Time much, what you think of these comments?</P>
<P>I do not remeber you mentioning influence of Kant book on Foucualt. When I was at Warwick I had tried to read Heidegger's Kant book along with The Order of Things and I remeber having feeling of amazment at how much of Kant's book (at least its spirit) I could see running benath The Order of Things. Unfortunately I did not take any notes at that time. I just thought that it was a crazy idea. I had just read before that an article by Christopher Norris in which he had dubbed Focault as an arch enemy of Kant or something to that effect. Just few boring thoughts from the past:)</P>
<P>Thanks again for your pervious mail</P>
<P>regards</P>
<P>ali<BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>----Original Message Follows----
<DIV></DIV>From: Stuart Elden <STUART.ELDEN@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<DIV></DIV>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>Subject: Fwd: RE: Il faut defendre Foucault
<DIV></DIV>Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 14:29:34 +0100
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Ali
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>I'm glad the previous post was useful. And many thanks for the Veyne
<DIV></DIV>citation. I think that I know the piece you mention, but i will follow
<DIV></DIV>this up.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>I think the issue around Heidegger is important, but I think the reason
<DIV></DIV>we seemed to disagree is that I read your first post as saying
<DIV></DIV>Heidegger is not concerned with 'being' but 'primarily about Being of
<DIV></DIV>beings'; your clarification mentions that you said/meant not 'beings'
<DIV></DIV>but 'Being of beings'. That 's' is of course central. Heidegger's
<DIV></DIV>concern is always with being (singular, and no article) not beings or a
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>being. When he does analyse _a being_ it is to gain access to the
<DIV></DIV>question of being.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>The first post made it seem he was only interested in being if it was
<DIV></DIV>of a being, in the second formulation it is obvious he is concerned
<DIV></DIV>with beings only in their being. Hope that's cleared up the issue.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>As a subsidiary point I try to avoid capitalisation in translation of
<DIV></DIV>Heidegger's key terms, to my mind that reifies or even deifies them.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>To clarify this point further, I consider
<DIV></DIV>> Foucault and Heidegger as not only doing historical ontology but also
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> relational ontology. In this context I had used Being of beings to
<DIV></DIV>> refer to the whole web of relations existing at a particular time. As
<DIV></DIV>I
<DIV></DIV>> understand, the difference between Foucault and Heidegger is that
<DIV></DIV>while > Foucault does not see any conception of Being beyond different
<DIV></DIV>web of
<DIV></DIV>> relations existing through out history Heidegger sees the possibility
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> of the manifestation of Being beyond these existing web of relations.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> Athough he was increasingly pessimistic about such a possibility at
<DIV></DIV>the end of his career. I am not sure how much this understanding is
<DIV></DIV>seconded by careful and detailed reading of Heidegger's text but this
<DIV></DIV>was in my mind when I said that Heidegger question was not about
<DIV></DIV>beings
<DIV></DIV>> but Being of beings.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>I can see the point you're making now. I think Heidegger abandons the
<DIV></DIV>idea that there might be such as thing as fundamental ontology, that is,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>unhistorical, quite early on. The closest he comes to it in the later
<DIV></DIV>period would be in the Beitraege, or Zeit und Sein, but here too he
<DIV></DIV>recognises that to say being _is_ X (i.e. time, or later Ereignis)
<DIV></DIV>would be simply a continuation of metaphysics. Rather he looks at what
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>allows being, that is the notion of Ereignis, 'event' or 'propriation'.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>What I think is extremely important for Foucault is how Heidegger
<DIV></DIV>investigates the tradition to see what understanding of being held sway,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>to see what conditions of possibility there were for different
<DIV></DIV>interpretations of the political, of space, of technology, of art, etc.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>That history of being, or the historical investigation of conditions of
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>possibility is a historicisation of the problematic of Being and Time.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>That's in essence what I mean by historical ontology, which is
<DIV></DIV>relational (synchronic?) as well as historical (diachronic).
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>So, sure, there's no attempt in Foucault to find a manifestation of
<DIV></DIV>being outside of these relations, it's a problematic point in Heidegger
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>too. My sense is that Foucault was far more interested in Heidegger's
<DIV></DIV>work from around the mid 1930s on than simply in Being and Time. Letter
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>on Humanism for example, and the Nietzsche book - as Althusser says,
<DIV></DIV>the Letter was crucial for a whole generation of French thinkers in
<DIV></DIV>freeing themselves of the influence/power of Sartre. Here was a way to
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>criticise Sartre, but also a way to utilise Heidegger without the
<DIV></DIV>misleading existentialist jargon that was only a minor part of
<DIV></DIV>Heidegger's work.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>That's all for now
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Cheers
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Stuart
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>--
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></html>