--part1_cc.102249e9.2a8d27f1_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
i think that the "use" of foucault that you're talking about may be part of
what you're looking for. i see way too many people trying to figure out what
"foucault really thought" and who read his books like canonical texts, where
they have to interpret the authentic meaning out of it. a better approach,
that i get from deleuze, is to look at theory like a toolbox. by "using"
foucault, you take what you like from him and use it. if you don't like
something, then don't use it.
the history of philosophy is bullshit. i don't care much for what spinoza
wanted. what i care about is using ideas in his books to develop my own
thought. it's the difference between tracing and mapping that deleuze and
guattari talk about in the introduction to ATP ("The rhizome is altogether
different, a map and not a tracing. Make a map, not a tracing. The orchid
does not reproduce the tracing of the wasp; it forms a map with the wasp, in
a rhizome. What distinguishes the map from the tracing is that it is entirely
oriented toard an experimentation in contact ith the real The map does not
reproduce an unconscious closed in upon itself; it constructs the
unconscious" [12]).
when i read one of my favorite books, i feel like i'm at war. i struggle with
what's being presented at pose it against what i've assumed up until that
point. that was especially the case when i read anti-oedipus, in light of my
once orthodox devotion to lacan. scary, but exhilerating.
one love,
aaron
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
"Speech kills, poisons, mutilates, distorts, dirties."
-Jean Genet, Funeral Rites
In a message dated 8/15/2002 8:24:58 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
mohgad@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> it seems to me reading some of the
> discussions here that Foucault's thought is perfect,
> that we should take every single observation of his
> and apply it wholeheartedly....comments like "Foucault
> is to be 'used'.....not read..." (I am slightly
> paraphrasing here), etc.
--part1_cc.102249e9.2a8d27f1_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>i think that the "use" of foucault that you're talking about may be part of what you're looking for. i see way too many people trying to figure out what "foucault really thought" and who read his books like canonical texts, where they have to interpret the authentic meaning out of it. a better approach, that i get from deleuze, is to look at theory like a toolbox. by "using" foucault, you take what you like from him and use it. if you don't like something, then don't use it.
<BR>
<BR>the history of philosophy is bullshit. i don't care much for what spinoza wanted. what i care about is using ideas in his books to develop my own thought. it's the difference between tracing and mapping that deleuze and guattari talk about in the introduction to ATP ("The rhizome is altogether different, a map and not a tracing. Make a map, not a tracing. The orchid does not reproduce the tracing of the wasp; it forms a map with the wasp, in a rhizome. What distinguishes the map from the tracing is that it is entirely oriented toard an experimentation in contact ith the real The map does not reproduce an unconscious closed in upon itself; it constructs the unconscious" [12]).
<BR>
<BR>when i read one of my favorite books, i feel like i'm at war. i struggle with what's being presented at pose it against what i've assumed up until that point. that was especially the case when i read anti-oedipus, in light of my once orthodox devotion to lacan. scary, but exhilerating.
<BR>
<BR>one love,
<BR>
<BR>aaron
<BR>
<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<BR>"Speech kills, poisons, mutilates, distorts, dirties."
<BR>
<BR>-Jean Genet, Funeral Rites
<BR>
<BR>In a message dated 8/15/2002 8:24:58 AM Mountain Daylight Time, mohgad@xxxxxxxxx writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">it seems to me reading some of the
<BR>discussions here that Foucault's thought is perfect,
<BR>that we should take every single observation of his
<BR>and apply it wholeheartedly....comments like "Foucault
<BR>is to be 'used'.....not read..." (I am slightly
<BR>paraphrasing here), etc.</FONT></HTML>
--part1_cc.102249e9.2a8d27f1_boundary--