Dear all,
Yes, my question certainly refers to the effect that
drugs have on the thought of these thinkers, but even
more, it refers about which kind of drugs they used to
use not as a merely way of life, but a way of thinking
and producing their particular thought. Foucault
brings me a lot of doubts on this matter: when I read
Le mots et les choses I realized that the historical
retrospective through the classic epoch concerning to
the arqueologycal method is a point of view that could
vanish some estructurated enunciations or cathegorical
implications, in order to find positive knowledge
beyond historical insterstices. All through that book,
this positionated view remains to a fenomenologycal
approach that sounds very lysergic to me (this could
be a potential trap, as you say, that we can never get
rid of it) but the controversial book could never
reach that pretended point of view, without a
desterritorializazed proposal (concerning to
epistemology history or philosophy) that Foucault
might fill in with his own thinking... It is well know
that after that his was worried about that
unpredictable effect, and a few months later he wrote
Larcheology du savoir as a response of the
methological debt... We could not forget that by that
time Le mots et les choses was a combat book, that
detonated a rupture inside the academic circuits...it
shined as a response of its epoch as well: the
sixties, a decade of highly psyquedelic tolerance
(fisiologycally speaking)... besides, french young
philosophers or french intellectuals were very
discrete about their use of drugs, it was not mererly
the case of the american ones, that were very
extroverted about political implicances concerning to
psyquedelic tolerance and its consequent opened minded
ideologies, or even the collective possibility of a
lucid political conscience...
After the effervecence of that, a few years after
(surerly the shortest years of the century) Foucault
wrote Thetrum Philosophicum, with the profound feeling
of let going some young and intense way of living and
thinking (his pilgrimage from arqueology to
genealogy). His comment about LSD and opium might let
us interpretate that he used to use this drugs
(homesickness about the huge wave of his epoch, a
bye-bye of its own epistemical context, a grave to the
fenomenologycal domain) so, we could follow an
overcoded interpretation: using Lsd could bring on to
him the arqueologycal point of view (the one that
finally collapses the fenomenologycal approach and
vanishes the estructurated cathegories) and in the
other hand, using opium might bring on to his work the
genealogical implicance (the one that configurates
power and its substancialization, the one that could
let him walk into the categorical indifference
unharmed, what is it to say, the one that reveals
somekind of trangresive transgression. (So, as you can
notice: I am interested in tracing transversal
associations betweem the man, the drug, and his
work...) This intellectual curtain might suit on D&Gs
work: we could think that they had never used a drug
and they were some human mediums that could abduce
empirical wisdom from the otherness, or we could think
that their way of thinking was actually a product of
an ionically empirical certitude orientated by the use
of some drugs.
I just cannot believe what they say in ATP (not
applied to them, of course) That suggestions couldnot
inmediatly significate that the use of some drugs
(but, which one?) was erradicated off their thought.
That comment was surerly avoiding the fact that their
thought could promote the use of some drugs?doesnot
lead us to think that they were flipping out with
water (instead of that, may suggest that they were far
beyond the drug experience?.) if it does exist a
letter to a harsh critic it was as a response to set
up the intellectual curtain?
Pd (to every one on the list) Could anyone share a
english or spanish traslations of deleuzes note "What
they would think about us?"
adr
--- nairda oremor <oxanairda@xxxxxxxxx> escribió: >
Hi everyone on the list!!!
>
> I have been writting about the use of some drugs
> related to the work of contemporary thinkers:
> philosofers, antropologysts, psycologists and
> psyquiatrists... The main argument concerns to make
> visible and hopefully follow the discourse that make
> posible the so called "politics of experience"...
> Anyway, could someone on this list afirm that
> Deleuze,
> Foucault or Guattari never used drugs? It is well
> known that the famous note "Que se va a pensar de
> nosotros?" (the translation in English could be
> "What
> they would think about us") respond to this
> implications... but, Is there any chance to hesitate
> about this? We know that Foucault liked opium and in
> some way he also admited some LSD experiences...:(by
> that time, Foucault was living a passage between the
> arqueology and genealogy between the knowledge and
> power... it makes me think that this passage
> represents some dark crisis that could be linked to
> the transition of a mererly arquelogical use of Lsd
> to
> a deeply genealogical use of opium... Yes, that
> hooked
> Foucault was the one that substancialized powern
> order
> to fight it, but underneath the implication of
> thinking through out the indiference of dope -and
> any
> later the third Foucault, Foucault the Greek,
> Foucault
> worried about the selfcare-)...
>
> In the other hand, i dont have any reference to link
>
> Deleuze or Guattaris work to the use of any drug...
> this makes me think that is simply imposible to
> imagine them in soberland... Somehow this must lead
> to
> the cultural fight that consagrates political
> mandarinates: just like the case of Gregory Batesons
> leadership in Palo alto: he want us to believe that
> he
> used lsd only once, at the time that it is well know
> his large friendship with Al Hubbard, and when his
> work could be posibly infested of lsds logical
> formalization (this guy wanted us to think that all
> his empirical wisdom was some kind of enlighted fart
> emanated from his antropological geniality)
> Well, i can say that Bateson political position
> could
> irritate D&G, and this could be a reason that would
> orientate D&Gs work, only just: we can remember that
> on Antiedipe they said that the doble bind theory
> was
> somehow respectfull (maybe not beacuse it was
> politizazed or edipizazed, but because its empirical
> richness), and we can also remember ATPs geology of
> moral: the doble bind theory leads us to the doble
> articulation of the stratas...
>
> As you can see, fortunatly, this essay could
> fulminate
> my mind, and I really need some good advice over
> here, please...
>
> Oops! i almost forgot: Could anyone share a english
> or
> spanish traslations of deleuzes note "What they
> would
> think about us?" (or some other references related
> to
> D&Gs use or non use of drugs?)
>
> thanks anyway
>
> Postdata:
> About politics of experience i always have in mind
> this words: THERE IS NO WHERE TO RUN!!!!
>
> so bye..
>
> adr
>
>
_________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Informacin de Estados Unidos y Amrica Latina, en
> Yahoo! Noticias.
> Vistanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
Yes, my question certainly refers to the effect that
drugs have on the thought of these thinkers, but even
more, it refers about which kind of drugs they used to
use not as a merely way of life, but a way of thinking
and producing their particular thought. Foucault
brings me a lot of doubts on this matter: when I read
Le mots et les choses I realized that the historical
retrospective through the classic epoch concerning to
the arqueologycal method is a point of view that could
vanish some estructurated enunciations or cathegorical
implications, in order to find positive knowledge
beyond historical insterstices. All through that book,
this positionated view remains to a fenomenologycal
approach that sounds very lysergic to me (this could
be a potential trap, as you say, that we can never get
rid of it) but the controversial book could never
reach that pretended point of view, without a
desterritorializazed proposal (concerning to
epistemology history or philosophy) that Foucault
might fill in with his own thinking... It is well know
that after that his was worried about that
unpredictable effect, and a few months later he wrote
Larcheology du savoir as a response of the
methological debt... We could not forget that by that
time Le mots et les choses was a combat book, that
detonated a rupture inside the academic circuits...it
shined as a response of its epoch as well: the
sixties, a decade of highly psyquedelic tolerance
(fisiologycally speaking)... besides, french young
philosophers or french intellectuals were very
discrete about their use of drugs, it was not mererly
the case of the american ones, that were very
extroverted about political implicances concerning to
psyquedelic tolerance and its consequent opened minded
ideologies, or even the collective possibility of a
lucid political conscience...
After the effervecence of that, a few years after
(surerly the shortest years of the century) Foucault
wrote Thetrum Philosophicum, with the profound feeling
of let going some young and intense way of living and
thinking (his pilgrimage from arqueology to
genealogy). His comment about LSD and opium might let
us interpretate that he used to use this drugs
(homesickness about the huge wave of his epoch, a
bye-bye of its own epistemical context, a grave to the
fenomenologycal domain) so, we could follow an
overcoded interpretation: using Lsd could bring on to
him the arqueologycal point of view (the one that
finally collapses the fenomenologycal approach and
vanishes the estructurated cathegories) and in the
other hand, using opium might bring on to his work the
genealogical implicance (the one that configurates
power and its substancialization, the one that could
let him walk into the categorical indifference
unharmed, what is it to say, the one that reveals
somekind of trangresive transgression. (So, as you can
notice: I am interested in tracing transversal
associations betweem the man, the drug, and his
work...) This intellectual curtain might suit on D&Gs
work: we could think that they had never used a drug
and they were some human mediums that could abduce
empirical wisdom from the otherness, or we could think
that their way of thinking was actually a product of
an ionically empirical certitude orientated by the use
of some drugs.
I just cannot believe what they say in ATP (not
applied to them, of course) That suggestions couldnot
inmediatly significate that the use of some drugs
(but, which one?) was erradicated off their thought.
That comment was surerly avoiding the fact that their
thought could promote the use of some drugs?doesnot
lead us to think that they were flipping out with
water (instead of that, may suggest that they were far
beyond the drug experience?.) if it does exist a
letter to a harsh critic it was as a response to set
up the intellectual curtain?
Pd (to every one on the list) Could anyone share a
english or spanish traslations of deleuzes note "What
they would think about us?"
adr
--- nairda oremor <oxanairda@xxxxxxxxx> escribió: >
Hi everyone on the list!!!
>
> I have been writting about the use of some drugs
> related to the work of contemporary thinkers:
> philosofers, antropologysts, psycologists and
> psyquiatrists... The main argument concerns to make
> visible and hopefully follow the discourse that make
> posible the so called "politics of experience"...
> Anyway, could someone on this list afirm that
> Deleuze,
> Foucault or Guattari never used drugs? It is well
> known that the famous note "Que se va a pensar de
> nosotros?" (the translation in English could be
> "What
> they would think about us") respond to this
> implications... but, Is there any chance to hesitate
> about this? We know that Foucault liked opium and in
> some way he also admited some LSD experiences...:(by
> that time, Foucault was living a passage between the
> arqueology and genealogy between the knowledge and
> power... it makes me think that this passage
> represents some dark crisis that could be linked to
> the transition of a mererly arquelogical use of Lsd
> to
> a deeply genealogical use of opium... Yes, that
> hooked
> Foucault was the one that substancialized powern
> order
> to fight it, but underneath the implication of
> thinking through out the indiference of dope -and
> any
> later the third Foucault, Foucault the Greek,
> Foucault
> worried about the selfcare-)...
>
> In the other hand, i dont have any reference to link
>
> Deleuze or Guattaris work to the use of any drug...
> this makes me think that is simply imposible to
> imagine them in soberland... Somehow this must lead
> to
> the cultural fight that consagrates political
> mandarinates: just like the case of Gregory Batesons
> leadership in Palo alto: he want us to believe that
> he
> used lsd only once, at the time that it is well know
> his large friendship with Al Hubbard, and when his
> work could be posibly infested of lsds logical
> formalization (this guy wanted us to think that all
> his empirical wisdom was some kind of enlighted fart
> emanated from his antropological geniality)
> Well, i can say that Bateson political position
> could
> irritate D&G, and this could be a reason that would
> orientate D&Gs work, only just: we can remember that
> on Antiedipe they said that the doble bind theory
> was
> somehow respectfull (maybe not beacuse it was
> politizazed or edipizazed, but because its empirical
> richness), and we can also remember ATPs geology of
> moral: the doble bind theory leads us to the doble
> articulation of the stratas...
>
> As you can see, fortunatly, this essay could
> fulminate
> my mind, and I really need some good advice over
> here, please...
>
> Oops! i almost forgot: Could anyone share a english
> or
> spanish traslations of deleuzes note "What they
> would
> think about us?" (or some other references related
> to
> D&Gs use or non use of drugs?)
>
> thanks anyway
>
> Postdata:
> About politics of experience i always have in mind
> this words: THERE IS NO WHERE TO RUN!!!!
>
> so bye..
>
> adr
>
>
_________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Informacin de Estados Unidos y Amrica Latina, en
> Yahoo! Noticias.
> Vistanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com