Following on from Stuart Elden?s book review of L?Hermineutique du subject
and the observation made there concerning links between Care of the Self and
the early Christian and pre-Christian eras and the enlightenment, there is a
notion put forth by some historians and romantics that Freemasonry evolved
from the millennium of 500 years either side of the birth of Jesus Christ.
While the academic rigor of these theories is often shown to be dubious,
there may be something worth considering in light of Foucault?s ?examination
of the subject?.
Freemasonry concerns itself with helping Freemasons concern themselves with
themselves. It implores its members to take care of themselves. The
command ?know thyself? is part of the ritual of the pinnacle of the York
Rite of Freemasonry and veiled in that of the Scottish Rite (these passages
of ritual are published in various exposes of Freemasonry.)
With this in mind, consider that Freemasonry has been considered by some to
parallel Egyptian, Greek, Hellenistic and Roman philosophies and Christian
spirituality ? perhaps even the Essenes. That is not surprising in itself,
but there are some interesting parallels between Masonic ideas and the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Evolution of Masonic ritual can be traced to 1717, but the
Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the middle of the 20th Century. If
Freemasonry is an enlightenment invention then where did these ideas come
from? Indeed other ancient literature may have been discovered and used as
the basis for Masonic ritual, but that still leaves a lot open to suggest
more wonderful romantic theories.
France has several Masonic societies that are quite radical and not aligned
with the arch-conservative Freemasonry better known throughout the English
speaking world. Perhaps Foucault was exposed to Masonic ideas. Perhaps
there are some keys to understanding his ideas in Masonic philosophy and
ritual.
With the aid of members of this list, Foucault has made considerable sense
to me. I wonder if that has been due to my sensitivity to care of the self
developed elsewhere.
Am I being too simplistic?
Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA - 0411267256 - lboxer@xxxxxxxxxxx
Read my book chapter in The Self and Others
http://www.intergon.net/books.html -- http://intergon.net/card
We help align your culture with your aims
----------------------------------------------
Melbourne Volunteer Rifle Regiment150th Anniversary --
http://intergon.net/rifles
----------------------------------------------
>From: "David McInerney" <borderlands@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Abnormal
>Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 11:27:17 +1030
>
>Dear Stuart,
>
>I too found the 1794-75 and 1975-76 lecture courses made me rethink what I
>thought I knew about Foucault, and I found the the previously unpublished
>material in the 75-76 course, especially Foucault's readings of Hobbes and
>Boulanvillers, to be both extremely useful in themselves and to give a new
>appreciation of the 'Two Lectures'. The lectures on Hobbes and
>Boulanvillers seem to engage with the studies on Machiavelli in France at
>the time, and perhaps to displace Machiavelli somewhat, although in the
>published 'governmentality' lecture Machiavelli seems to be restored to a
>place of solitude relative to those who preceeded and succeeded him (e.g.,
>Hobbes, Locke) similar to that given to him by Althusser in 1977. I'm
>interested to read the lectures on governmentality to see if these give
>more
>on Foucault's views of early modern political thought. I know from what
>Colin Gordon has written on the topic that the eighteenth century Scottish
>Enlightenment (especially the works of Smith and Ferguson) was a topic of
>discussion, and I'm wondering if this was broadened to include other works,
>such as those of William Robertson, John Millar, Lord Kames, etc - or if
>Foucault extended his interests in this area (suggested by the earlier
>lectures on Boulanvillers) to a discussion of Montesquieu.
>
>I've found the lecture on monstrosity to be one of the most interesting
>parts of _Abnormal_ for my own work on the place of Oriental despotism in
>Enlightenment thinking. One can see the connections of Foucault's thinking
>there with the analyses of Montesquieu in the works of Louis Althusser and
>Alain Grosrichard but the treatment of these monsters in terms of the idea
>of a social contract seems to me to be problematic, especially given not
>only what Althusser notes regarding the relation between Montesquieu,
>Boulanvillers and the Germanist school and the social contract theory of
>the
>Romanists but also what Foucault himself says on the same topic in the
>lectures of the following year. On the other hand the movement away from
>the Lacanian analysis of Grosrichard in terms of the Symbolic is most
>welcome in enabling a historical analysis of its emergence, although to my
>mind this analysis needs to be made political and philosophical as well as
>historical, so that the centrality of this notion of the despot and the
>multitude as monstrous in the eighteenth century can be explained together
>with the structure of possible positions on this matter that make it able
>to
>fulfill quite different functions in opposing discourses. Foucault is, of
>course, primarily concerned in those lectures with the emergence of (the
>somewhat more mundane) figure of the criminal as monster, and the analysis
>of the despot and the multitude in _Abormal_ is more of an interesting
>aside, but I often find his digressions quite thought provoking and look
>forward to reading more of these digressions in forthcoming volumes.
>
>best wishes
>David
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find love today with ninemsn personals. Click here:
http://ninemsn.match.com
and the observation made there concerning links between Care of the Self and
the early Christian and pre-Christian eras and the enlightenment, there is a
notion put forth by some historians and romantics that Freemasonry evolved
from the millennium of 500 years either side of the birth of Jesus Christ.
While the academic rigor of these theories is often shown to be dubious,
there may be something worth considering in light of Foucault?s ?examination
of the subject?.
Freemasonry concerns itself with helping Freemasons concern themselves with
themselves. It implores its members to take care of themselves. The
command ?know thyself? is part of the ritual of the pinnacle of the York
Rite of Freemasonry and veiled in that of the Scottish Rite (these passages
of ritual are published in various exposes of Freemasonry.)
With this in mind, consider that Freemasonry has been considered by some to
parallel Egyptian, Greek, Hellenistic and Roman philosophies and Christian
spirituality ? perhaps even the Essenes. That is not surprising in itself,
but there are some interesting parallels between Masonic ideas and the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Evolution of Masonic ritual can be traced to 1717, but the
Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the middle of the 20th Century. If
Freemasonry is an enlightenment invention then where did these ideas come
from? Indeed other ancient literature may have been discovered and used as
the basis for Masonic ritual, but that still leaves a lot open to suggest
more wonderful romantic theories.
France has several Masonic societies that are quite radical and not aligned
with the arch-conservative Freemasonry better known throughout the English
speaking world. Perhaps Foucault was exposed to Masonic ideas. Perhaps
there are some keys to understanding his ideas in Masonic philosophy and
ritual.
With the aid of members of this list, Foucault has made considerable sense
to me. I wonder if that has been due to my sensitivity to care of the self
developed elsewhere.
Am I being too simplistic?
Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA - 0411267256 - lboxer@xxxxxxxxxxx
Read my book chapter in The Self and Others
http://www.intergon.net/books.html -- http://intergon.net/card
We help align your culture with your aims
----------------------------------------------
Melbourne Volunteer Rifle Regiment150th Anniversary --
http://intergon.net/rifles
----------------------------------------------
>From: "David McInerney" <borderlands@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Abnormal
>Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 11:27:17 +1030
>
>Dear Stuart,
>
>I too found the 1794-75 and 1975-76 lecture courses made me rethink what I
>thought I knew about Foucault, and I found the the previously unpublished
>material in the 75-76 course, especially Foucault's readings of Hobbes and
>Boulanvillers, to be both extremely useful in themselves and to give a new
>appreciation of the 'Two Lectures'. The lectures on Hobbes and
>Boulanvillers seem to engage with the studies on Machiavelli in France at
>the time, and perhaps to displace Machiavelli somewhat, although in the
>published 'governmentality' lecture Machiavelli seems to be restored to a
>place of solitude relative to those who preceeded and succeeded him (e.g.,
>Hobbes, Locke) similar to that given to him by Althusser in 1977. I'm
>interested to read the lectures on governmentality to see if these give
>more
>on Foucault's views of early modern political thought. I know from what
>Colin Gordon has written on the topic that the eighteenth century Scottish
>Enlightenment (especially the works of Smith and Ferguson) was a topic of
>discussion, and I'm wondering if this was broadened to include other works,
>such as those of William Robertson, John Millar, Lord Kames, etc - or if
>Foucault extended his interests in this area (suggested by the earlier
>lectures on Boulanvillers) to a discussion of Montesquieu.
>
>I've found the lecture on monstrosity to be one of the most interesting
>parts of _Abnormal_ for my own work on the place of Oriental despotism in
>Enlightenment thinking. One can see the connections of Foucault's thinking
>there with the analyses of Montesquieu in the works of Louis Althusser and
>Alain Grosrichard but the treatment of these monsters in terms of the idea
>of a social contract seems to me to be problematic, especially given not
>only what Althusser notes regarding the relation between Montesquieu,
>Boulanvillers and the Germanist school and the social contract theory of
>the
>Romanists but also what Foucault himself says on the same topic in the
>lectures of the following year. On the other hand the movement away from
>the Lacanian analysis of Grosrichard in terms of the Symbolic is most
>welcome in enabling a historical analysis of its emergence, although to my
>mind this analysis needs to be made political and philosophical as well as
>historical, so that the centrality of this notion of the despot and the
>multitude as monstrous in the eighteenth century can be explained together
>with the structure of possible positions on this matter that make it able
>to
>fulfill quite different functions in opposing discourses. Foucault is, of
>course, primarily concerned in those lectures with the emergence of (the
>somewhat more mundane) figure of the criminal as monster, and the analysis
>of the despot and the multitude in _Abormal_ is more of an interesting
>aside, but I often find his digressions quite thought provoking and look
>forward to reading more of these digressions in forthcoming volumes.
>
>best wishes
>David
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find love today with ninemsn personals. Click here:
http://ninemsn.match.com