Hello for all
I´m looking for good references about 'structuralism', and also the
relations of structuralism and the 'archaeological period' of Foucault
(i´m sorry for my english :D
[]´s
b.r.
O Estrangeiro - Banco de Textos em Ciências Humanas
http://www.oestrangeiro.cjb.net
Pesquisa em Michel Foucault
http://www.geocities.com/bernardorieux/michel.htm
Lista de Discussão: Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari:
http://br.groups.yahoo.com/group/estrangeiro/
"Uma teoria é como uma caixa de ferramentas. Nada tem a ver com o
significante... É preciso que sirva, é preciso que funcione. E não para si
mesma. (...) Não se refaz uma teoria, fazem-se outras; há outras a serem
feitas. É curioso que seja (...) Proust, que o tenha dito tão claramente:
tratem meus livros como óculos dirigidos para fora e se eles não lhes
servem, consigam outros, encontrem vocês mesmos seu instrumento, que é
forçosamente um instrumento de combate." Gilles Deleuze
"Navigare necesse; vivere non est necesse"
Pompeu
----- Original Message -----
From: ronald tuch <rontee707@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: foucault and agency [Franois Gagnon]
> That is a very interesting point, that the individual's particular
personal
> contribution to a larger social/historical event may not be meaningful, if
> that is the right word. But the use of email itself is important is it
not.
> Using email and thus validating it as an important way to communicate is
> important. How does email itself contribute
> to the larger historical event. How did telephones contribute to the two
> world wars. Individual phone calls made a million times by millions of
> people did not matter--but did not the use of the phone matter? Could
these
> wars have been fought without phones and the wireless? Had millions of
> people NOT used emails and rejected the internet and thus 'turned it off,"
> as an investment for companies and a personal investment in time and money
> by individuals--had emailing not been guaranteed such a prominent position
> in history-technology, then the role played by emailing in the revolution
> may have been minimalized. What about emails now being intercepted to
catch
> terrorists? Are they not using emails because emailing has been set up as
a
> network of communication throughout the world? The individual acts may
not
> be important but the instrumentality of the act is important--the
validation
> and the sustenance of the instruments are what make the individual acts
> profound in a larger context.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ali Rizvi" <ali_m_rizvi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 2:33 AM
> Subject: Re: foucault and agency [Franois Gagnon]
>
>
> >
> > I think it should be carefully determined on what level it is
appropriate
> to
> > say, according to Foucault, "it does not matter who act". Take for
example
> > four different levels (roughly) on which this claim can be analysed.
> >
> > I am writing this email. Of course it does matter that I am writing it
and
> > not you if considering the question of who wrote this email.
> >
> > I am writing this email. Now to what extent this writing of email
matters
> > considering my self-constitution. It does matter but to a lesser extent
> and
> > there are and may be various other factors which are relevant and may be
> > more important.
> >
> > I am writing this email. Consider this with reference to a possibility
of
> > revolution in near future in say (Foucauldian studies). Well may be it
has
> > some (fractional) relevance but it hardly matters that (who) wrote this
> > mail. It would be more relevant to consider the situation of who wrote
> > the email in this context.
> >
> > I am writing this email. Consider this with reference to a possibility
of
> > revolution on system wide level. Well it is almost irrelevant and it
> almost
> > does not matter at all (who) wrote email in this context.
> >
> > Foucault's purpose was not to deny agent or the efficacy of his actions
> but
> > to show its limitations. Even when we do act, or say something, the
moment
> > we utter something or act, the action and words take there own life and
in
> > turn determine us and others. It was the force of this anonymity in
> history
> > that Foucault tried to emphasise in his formulations in the context of
> > Enlightenment claims about powers and limitless capabilities of man.
> >
> > best
> > ali
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [That is not what one would call a denial of agency. Of the subject,
> > probably - and it is debatable. I would say though that this does not
> > exlude
> > the impression, reading Foucault, that "it doesn't matter who act" and
> > therefore that his analysis are affect-less, focusing rather on
impersonal
> > rationalities of government that somewhat lack their 'human'
> incorporation.]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Selon suannschafer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> >
> > > >Foucault's critics as a routine confuse his rejection of subject
> > > >with the rejection of agency. It is not the same thing to dney
> > > >agency and subject. One can believe in agency without believing in
> > > >the notion of subject as understood in Cartesian and Enlightenment
> > > >tradtion.
> > >
> > > That's interesting. Can you elaborate? Thanks in advance!
> > >
> >
> >
> > Franois Gagnon
> > tudiant au Doctorat
> > Dpartement de Communication
> > Universit de Montral
> > (514)343-6111 poste 1464
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> >
_______________________________________________________________________
Busca Yahoo!
O melhor lugar para encontrar tudo o que você procura na Internet
http://br.busca.yahoo.com/
I´m looking for good references about 'structuralism', and also the
relations of structuralism and the 'archaeological period' of Foucault
(i´m sorry for my english :D
[]´s
b.r.
O Estrangeiro - Banco de Textos em Ciências Humanas
http://www.oestrangeiro.cjb.net
Pesquisa em Michel Foucault
http://www.geocities.com/bernardorieux/michel.htm
Lista de Discussão: Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari:
http://br.groups.yahoo.com/group/estrangeiro/
"Uma teoria é como uma caixa de ferramentas. Nada tem a ver com o
significante... É preciso que sirva, é preciso que funcione. E não para si
mesma. (...) Não se refaz uma teoria, fazem-se outras; há outras a serem
feitas. É curioso que seja (...) Proust, que o tenha dito tão claramente:
tratem meus livros como óculos dirigidos para fora e se eles não lhes
servem, consigam outros, encontrem vocês mesmos seu instrumento, que é
forçosamente um instrumento de combate." Gilles Deleuze
"Navigare necesse; vivere non est necesse"
Pompeu
----- Original Message -----
From: ronald tuch <rontee707@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: foucault and agency [Franois Gagnon]
> That is a very interesting point, that the individual's particular
personal
> contribution to a larger social/historical event may not be meaningful, if
> that is the right word. But the use of email itself is important is it
not.
> Using email and thus validating it as an important way to communicate is
> important. How does email itself contribute
> to the larger historical event. How did telephones contribute to the two
> world wars. Individual phone calls made a million times by millions of
> people did not matter--but did not the use of the phone matter? Could
these
> wars have been fought without phones and the wireless? Had millions of
> people NOT used emails and rejected the internet and thus 'turned it off,"
> as an investment for companies and a personal investment in time and money
> by individuals--had emailing not been guaranteed such a prominent position
> in history-technology, then the role played by emailing in the revolution
> may have been minimalized. What about emails now being intercepted to
catch
> terrorists? Are they not using emails because emailing has been set up as
a
> network of communication throughout the world? The individual acts may
not
> be important but the instrumentality of the act is important--the
validation
> and the sustenance of the instruments are what make the individual acts
> profound in a larger context.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ali Rizvi" <ali_m_rizvi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 2:33 AM
> Subject: Re: foucault and agency [Franois Gagnon]
>
>
> >
> > I think it should be carefully determined on what level it is
appropriate
> to
> > say, according to Foucault, "it does not matter who act". Take for
example
> > four different levels (roughly) on which this claim can be analysed.
> >
> > I am writing this email. Of course it does matter that I am writing it
and
> > not you if considering the question of who wrote this email.
> >
> > I am writing this email. Now to what extent this writing of email
matters
> > considering my self-constitution. It does matter but to a lesser extent
> and
> > there are and may be various other factors which are relevant and may be
> > more important.
> >
> > I am writing this email. Consider this with reference to a possibility
of
> > revolution in near future in say (Foucauldian studies). Well may be it
has
> > some (fractional) relevance but it hardly matters that (who) wrote this
> > mail. It would be more relevant to consider the situation of who wrote
> > the email in this context.
> >
> > I am writing this email. Consider this with reference to a possibility
of
> > revolution on system wide level. Well it is almost irrelevant and it
> almost
> > does not matter at all (who) wrote email in this context.
> >
> > Foucault's purpose was not to deny agent or the efficacy of his actions
> but
> > to show its limitations. Even when we do act, or say something, the
moment
> > we utter something or act, the action and words take there own life and
in
> > turn determine us and others. It was the force of this anonymity in
> history
> > that Foucault tried to emphasise in his formulations in the context of
> > Enlightenment claims about powers and limitless capabilities of man.
> >
> > best
> > ali
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [That is not what one would call a denial of agency. Of the subject,
> > probably - and it is debatable. I would say though that this does not
> > exlude
> > the impression, reading Foucault, that "it doesn't matter who act" and
> > therefore that his analysis are affect-less, focusing rather on
impersonal
> > rationalities of government that somewhat lack their 'human'
> incorporation.]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Selon suannschafer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> >
> > > >Foucault's critics as a routine confuse his rejection of subject
> > > >with the rejection of agency. It is not the same thing to dney
> > > >agency and subject. One can believe in agency without believing in
> > > >the notion of subject as understood in Cartesian and Enlightenment
> > > >tradtion.
> > >
> > > That's interesting. Can you elaborate? Thanks in advance!
> > >
> >
> >
> > Franois Gagnon
> > tudiant au Doctorat
> > Dpartement de Communication
> > Universit de Montral
> > (514)343-6111 poste 1464
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> >
_______________________________________________________________________
Busca Yahoo!
O melhor lugar para encontrar tudo o que você procura na Internet
http://br.busca.yahoo.com/