Ali, Maureen,
I'd like to be able to say more about these notions, and the post has sat
waiting to be answered for a couple of weeks now. My apologies.
Some odd scattered comments.
Though Heidegger mentions Kierkegaard in relation to the Augenblick in Being
and Time, I sense Nietzsche is behind the analysis, and certainly in the
second lecture course on Nietzsche (vol 2 of English translation) this comes
to the fore. The course is indispensible for an understanding of Heidegger
and the moment.
Augenblick is a word with religious connotations. Luther used it, and
probably coined in, in translating _kairos_ in Paul's letter to the
Corinthians - we will all be changed in the blink of an eye, at the last
trumpet. (Don't have the exact quote or full ref here, sorry)
Foucault's understanding of event is indeed narrower than his understanding
of presence, but it is worth reading Being and Time and looking at the way
Anwesenheit and Gegenwart relation. Present is both temporal and spatial. It
is for Foucault and Heidegger.
Foucault and structuralism is an interesting question. On the one hand are
the explicit 'i am not a structuralist' type comments, but in 1964 he gave
an interview in Tunisia where he explained how he saw himself using its
tools and how it functioned in his work. He also - somewhere - denies that
structuralism is ahistorical, and thinks it is rather an approach to
history. But i would suggest that the historical element sets Foucault apart
from other so-called structuralists, and also suggest his analysis of space,
rather than just the use of spatial metaphors also sets him apart.
I can't answer some of those other questions now, but the question of
Augenblick and present is a topic of considerable interest to me. I tried to
say something about it in the book.
Cheers
Stuart
I'd like to be able to say more about these notions, and the post has sat
waiting to be answered for a couple of weeks now. My apologies.
Some odd scattered comments.
Though Heidegger mentions Kierkegaard in relation to the Augenblick in Being
and Time, I sense Nietzsche is behind the analysis, and certainly in the
second lecture course on Nietzsche (vol 2 of English translation) this comes
to the fore. The course is indispensible for an understanding of Heidegger
and the moment.
Augenblick is a word with religious connotations. Luther used it, and
probably coined in, in translating _kairos_ in Paul's letter to the
Corinthians - we will all be changed in the blink of an eye, at the last
trumpet. (Don't have the exact quote or full ref here, sorry)
Foucault's understanding of event is indeed narrower than his understanding
of presence, but it is worth reading Being and Time and looking at the way
Anwesenheit and Gegenwart relation. Present is both temporal and spatial. It
is for Foucault and Heidegger.
Foucault and structuralism is an interesting question. On the one hand are
the explicit 'i am not a structuralist' type comments, but in 1964 he gave
an interview in Tunisia where he explained how he saw himself using its
tools and how it functioned in his work. He also - somewhere - denies that
structuralism is ahistorical, and thinks it is rather an approach to
history. But i would suggest that the historical element sets Foucault apart
from other so-called structuralists, and also suggest his analysis of space,
rather than just the use of spatial metaphors also sets him apart.
I can't answer some of those other questions now, but the question of
Augenblick and present is a topic of considerable interest to me. I tried to
say something about it in the book.
Cheers
Stuart