Augenblick and event

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV> 
Stuart
 <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Thanks for your interesting comments.
 <o:p></o:p><PRE>I will take clue from your following comment: What I do think is important for Foucault<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>is the notion of Augenblick, which has links to Foucault's notion of a<o:p></o:p></PRE>
history of the present.<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
 Heidegger?s following observation in Being and Time might be relevant as well.
 <o:p></o:p>
?S. Kierkegaard is probably the one who has seen the existentiell phenomenon of the Augenblick with the most penetration; but this does not signify that he has been correspondingly successful in interpreting it existentially. He clings to the ordinary conception of time, and defines the Augenblick with the help of now (das jetzt) and eternity? (p.497 of English translation).
 <o:p></o:p>
Similarities between Heidegger?s and Foucault?s conception of time are obvious (at least on the surface). As early as in his introduction to Kant?s Anthropology we can see Foucault trying to transcend the notion of time that swings between ?now? and ?eternity?. Positively his was an effort to conceptualise time without the dichotomy of ?now? and ?eternity?. Thus he wonders in his introduction to Kant?s Anthropology weather it was possible ?to conceive of a critique of finitude (now?) Which would be liberating with respect to both man and the infinite (eternity), and which show that finitude (now?) is not an end, but the curve and knot of time in which the end is beginning?? (quoted in Macey The Lives of Mechel Foucault p. 89).<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
Foucault?s discussion of the present takes place in the backdrop of this conceptual transformation in the understanding of time and consequently of space as well. Foucault?s method whose two flanks are genealogy and archaeology is partly a response to this change in our conception of space time.  <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
Heidegger?s Augenblick (literally glance of the eye) is normally translated as the moment of vision (not sure it is a good translation in the context of Heidegger). It has certainly strong apparent similarity (at least) with Foucault?s notion of event. But as you must be knowing Foucault?s conception event does not exhaust his notion of the present. There is more to present than event. In fact event is exceptional (in the original Latin sense of rarity) element in Foucault?s conception of history.  <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
Event escapes categorisation. Foucault mentions his notion of event as a proof of his not being a structuralist: ?One can agree that structuralism formed the most systematic effort to evacuate the concept of event . . . from history. In that sense, I do not see who could be more of an anti structuralist than myself? (Foucault in Truth and Power, an interview published both in Foucault Reader and Power Knowledge).<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
Foucault also mentions the notion of event in reference to Iranian Revolution. In this case again event is like a spectacle, bit like Kantian sublime that escapes every rational apprehension.  Revolution is not just event, it is a long process but it culminates in an event, a spectacle that is then, normally, equated with revolution as a whole. In the following lines what Foucault says about revolutionary event in Iran is also true about event as such:<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
?Among the things that characterise this revolutionary event, there is the fact that it has brought out- and few peoples in history have had this-an absolutely objective will. The collective will is a political myth with which jurists and philosophers try to analyse or justify our institutions etc . . . personally, I thought that the collective will is like God, like the soul, something one would never encounter. I do not know whether you agree with me, but we met, in Tehran and throughout Iran, the collective will of people. Well you have to salute it, it doesn?t happen every day? (Iran: The spirit of a World?an interview published in Philosophy, Politics, Culture p. 215). <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
Event is exceptional in this sense as well, it does not happen every day. <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
So I can see readily see connection with Augenblick and event however without equating them and to the extent Foucauldian conception of event is a part of his conception of present, relation to Foucault?s conception of the present is also established. However, Foucault?s conception of present is much more beside event (which is exceptional anyhow so not actually part of every present?) and it is not obvious what connection can be made between the ?normal present? and Augenblick. I would like to hear from you on that and also what you think of my interpretation of relation between Augenblick and event. <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
Thanks again<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
regards<o:p></o:p>
ali</DIV></div> <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> </html>