Let us be clear about one thing, before we loose
ourselves in the lambrinth opened up by it; this text
sets up a problematic relation between madness and
civilization, a relation not unlike that which exists
between the production and perpetuation of wealth, on
the one hand, and the production and perpetuation of
want and need, on the other, and although I use use
that example in the service of a simile to casts light
upon this essential relation of mutual dependence, in
the form of a similitude, the latter contradistinction
may, in some measure, be annexed by the former,
subserved, in part, by them, and they, in their turn,
by them. But that would perhaps preclude to much
analysis as I have time or patience to here draw out,
save in rough outlines only which indicate a direction
for future studies, laid open, as it were, only to be
put aside, in order to be taken up again latter,
rehandled, reworked, elaborated and extended to tis
ultimate conclusions, its terminal truth, wherever
that is, I cannot see in advance, but only anticipate
its arrival, along with so many other trains of
thought im waiting on- they, after all, arrive at me
as much as I do them, thus it does not make much sense
for me to identify myself as their authors, their
efficient and instrumental causes; I am subject to
them as much as they are object for me.
?it would be interesting to hear more about what the
?normal standards of acceptable scholarship? are that
Foucault dispenses with in this work?.
First, let us initially point out that these scholarly
standards are themselves ?cultural totalities of the
present?, with their own historicity, and, from the
point of view of a history of the present, must be
seen as effects, of the order of results, of a
determinant historical process.
With that in mind, let us now take, as a case in
point, those which find expression in your work, for
they, as will soon become clear, are typical enough of
the kind of scholarly standards this work comes up
against to furnish us with an exemplary example.
?I once heard that the famous ships of fools never in
fact existed. Is this true??
Here, we may immediately identify an anxiety concerned
with definitively establishing the mode of existence
of that which forms its object, interrogating it and
demanding to know of it whether or not it means what
it says it means, whether it is really telling the
truth or merely pretending to, a dissimulated truth it
would be an error to take as real- ?in the head? and
thus not ?out there? in the world. Those who loose
their heads in the world never quite find their way
within it; destracted by the show of fantastic
invention, they are lead astray, intoxicated by the
fascinating power of the imagination, its ability to
show what is not there, a ?fools paradise?, the resort
of fools, in any case, a 'trap for fools', framing to
the mind a product of its own invention and not
capturing reality, at least, not literally, but
rather, in metaphor only; for it belongs, this work of
men?s minds wrought in the workshop of his synthetic
imagination, to the domain of fiction, its ?proper
place?, and absolutely must not, therefore, be taken
as fact (as it is not given to him by reality but by
the faculty of wishing into existence what is not, at
least not yet, within its compass, but rather without
it, nothingness and not being.)
Are these ?satiric vessels?, these ?dream fleets?,
merely, simply, the product of a symbol seeking mind,
?figments?, to borrow Sculls expression, ?of
[foucaults] over-active imagination?, or did actually
set sail upon the seas of time? In so far as this work
is a work of histiography, it may be instructive to
ask: did Foucault recover a vanguished form, return
to a lost origin, or did he fabricate one in, through
and by an originating act? Did he recall to mind
something previously forgotten or did he call forth
something in the spontaneous act of creating it? All
of which, of course, beg the question: what is
history? And if it turns out, in the end, to be both
what happened and the account of what happened then
how are we to conceive of the relationship between
them?
Foucault is no stranger to this anxiety, ? an enormous
anxiety concerning the relationship, in a work of art,
between the real and the imaginary, and perhaps also
concerning the confused communication between
fantastic invention and the fascination of delirium.?
Indeed, he even takes the occasion of Margrets ?this
is not a pipe? to explore the problematic relation it
sets up between words and images, a theme which recurs
intermittently throughout madness and civilization
(particulary in relation to renaissance literary and
artitistic compositions, and also in relation to the
pathalogical landscapes and pathagnomic confiruations
of classical medicine, a theme which is expressed more
fully in the ?Birth of the clinic?) and again and
again in 'Archaeology of knowledge'.
For a sustained discussion on the ?real existence? or
non existence of the narrenshieff see ?Rewritting the
History of Madness? where several of its contributors
take issue with Midelforts remarks which bear upon the
same.
My position in relation to this question is clear and
simple. I am not asking it. Should I reflect upon it,
I consider that the narrenshieff is not merely a
literary motief, but also a theme of renaissance life.
Thanks for providing me with a plateform upon which to
stage some contended and thus contentious issues.
--- Nathaniel Roberts <npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Michael,
>
> It would be interesting to hear more about what the
> "normal standards of
> acceptable scholarship" are that Foucault dispenses
> with in this work. I
> once heard that the famous ships of fools never in
> fact existed. Is this
> true? Did he just make it up? And if so, is this the
> sort of issue you are
> referring to when you say he suspends the normal
> standards of acceptable
> scholarship?
>
> I ask because you don't really give any indication
> in your post. If it is a
> matter of factual errors, this would be serious
> indeed. I hope that the new
> addition will provide copious references that will
> allow such issues to be
> clarified. Or is your objection more of a
> methodological one? If this is
> the case, I hope your new translation will include
> some kind of
> introductory essay making your objections clear or
> explaining how the new
> translation provides insight into this question.
>
> But in the meantime, it would be most interesting to
> hear at least a precis
> of what you are alluding to in your post to this
> list.
>
> Regards,
> Nate Roberts
>
> At 07:15 AM 6/20/2005, you wrote:
> >The long awaited unabridged english translation of
> the
> >original french text 'Histoire de la folie a l'age
> >classique' is due for release this week by
> Routledge
> >publishing; englished as 'History of Madness in the
> >Classical age'.
> >
> >I, along with Andrew Scull, although for very
> >different reasons, am convinced that its reception
> >will be an unfavourable, even hostile one. Scull
> >believed- hoped- that a full length english
> >translation of the original french text would
> finally
> >put it, and the controversy it spawned, to rest by
> >bringing to light in the anglo-saxon world the
> >inadequacies of its arguments, "resting", as it
> does,
> >"on the shakiest of scholary foudations", "riddled
> >with errors of fact and interpretation", and thus
> >presenting a "grave danger" to "credulous" young
> minds
> >by alienating them from 'the truth'. I, with Allen
> >Megil, see it as "unacceptable" to "normal schools
> of
> >scholary standards" precisely because it does not
> >accept, from the outset, prior to any analysis, the
> >normal standards of acceptable scholarship, but
> >rather, holds them in abeyance and even calls them
> >into question (as an effect attendent upon it, of
> the
> >order of 'results'). In any case, "its appearance
> will
> >doubtless provoke a reassessment of Fouaults work
> on
> >the history of psychiatry."
> >
> >Michael Bibby
> >
> >Send instant messages to your online friends
> http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
> >_______________________________________________
> >Foucault-L mailing list
>
> Have you seen the <http://www.lcurve.org/>L-Curve?
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
ourselves in the lambrinth opened up by it; this text
sets up a problematic relation between madness and
civilization, a relation not unlike that which exists
between the production and perpetuation of wealth, on
the one hand, and the production and perpetuation of
want and need, on the other, and although I use use
that example in the service of a simile to casts light
upon this essential relation of mutual dependence, in
the form of a similitude, the latter contradistinction
may, in some measure, be annexed by the former,
subserved, in part, by them, and they, in their turn,
by them. But that would perhaps preclude to much
analysis as I have time or patience to here draw out,
save in rough outlines only which indicate a direction
for future studies, laid open, as it were, only to be
put aside, in order to be taken up again latter,
rehandled, reworked, elaborated and extended to tis
ultimate conclusions, its terminal truth, wherever
that is, I cannot see in advance, but only anticipate
its arrival, along with so many other trains of
thought im waiting on- they, after all, arrive at me
as much as I do them, thus it does not make much sense
for me to identify myself as their authors, their
efficient and instrumental causes; I am subject to
them as much as they are object for me.
?it would be interesting to hear more about what the
?normal standards of acceptable scholarship? are that
Foucault dispenses with in this work?.
First, let us initially point out that these scholarly
standards are themselves ?cultural totalities of the
present?, with their own historicity, and, from the
point of view of a history of the present, must be
seen as effects, of the order of results, of a
determinant historical process.
With that in mind, let us now take, as a case in
point, those which find expression in your work, for
they, as will soon become clear, are typical enough of
the kind of scholarly standards this work comes up
against to furnish us with an exemplary example.
?I once heard that the famous ships of fools never in
fact existed. Is this true??
Here, we may immediately identify an anxiety concerned
with definitively establishing the mode of existence
of that which forms its object, interrogating it and
demanding to know of it whether or not it means what
it says it means, whether it is really telling the
truth or merely pretending to, a dissimulated truth it
would be an error to take as real- ?in the head? and
thus not ?out there? in the world. Those who loose
their heads in the world never quite find their way
within it; destracted by the show of fantastic
invention, they are lead astray, intoxicated by the
fascinating power of the imagination, its ability to
show what is not there, a ?fools paradise?, the resort
of fools, in any case, a 'trap for fools', framing to
the mind a product of its own invention and not
capturing reality, at least, not literally, but
rather, in metaphor only; for it belongs, this work of
men?s minds wrought in the workshop of his synthetic
imagination, to the domain of fiction, its ?proper
place?, and absolutely must not, therefore, be taken
as fact (as it is not given to him by reality but by
the faculty of wishing into existence what is not, at
least not yet, within its compass, but rather without
it, nothingness and not being.)
Are these ?satiric vessels?, these ?dream fleets?,
merely, simply, the product of a symbol seeking mind,
?figments?, to borrow Sculls expression, ?of
[foucaults] over-active imagination?, or did actually
set sail upon the seas of time? In so far as this work
is a work of histiography, it may be instructive to
ask: did Foucault recover a vanguished form, return
to a lost origin, or did he fabricate one in, through
and by an originating act? Did he recall to mind
something previously forgotten or did he call forth
something in the spontaneous act of creating it? All
of which, of course, beg the question: what is
history? And if it turns out, in the end, to be both
what happened and the account of what happened then
how are we to conceive of the relationship between
them?
Foucault is no stranger to this anxiety, ? an enormous
anxiety concerning the relationship, in a work of art,
between the real and the imaginary, and perhaps also
concerning the confused communication between
fantastic invention and the fascination of delirium.?
Indeed, he even takes the occasion of Margrets ?this
is not a pipe? to explore the problematic relation it
sets up between words and images, a theme which recurs
intermittently throughout madness and civilization
(particulary in relation to renaissance literary and
artitistic compositions, and also in relation to the
pathalogical landscapes and pathagnomic confiruations
of classical medicine, a theme which is expressed more
fully in the ?Birth of the clinic?) and again and
again in 'Archaeology of knowledge'.
For a sustained discussion on the ?real existence? or
non existence of the narrenshieff see ?Rewritting the
History of Madness? where several of its contributors
take issue with Midelforts remarks which bear upon the
same.
My position in relation to this question is clear and
simple. I am not asking it. Should I reflect upon it,
I consider that the narrenshieff is not merely a
literary motief, but also a theme of renaissance life.
Thanks for providing me with a plateform upon which to
stage some contended and thus contentious issues.
--- Nathaniel Roberts <npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Michael,
>
> It would be interesting to hear more about what the
> "normal standards of
> acceptable scholarship" are that Foucault dispenses
> with in this work. I
> once heard that the famous ships of fools never in
> fact existed. Is this
> true? Did he just make it up? And if so, is this the
> sort of issue you are
> referring to when you say he suspends the normal
> standards of acceptable
> scholarship?
>
> I ask because you don't really give any indication
> in your post. If it is a
> matter of factual errors, this would be serious
> indeed. I hope that the new
> addition will provide copious references that will
> allow such issues to be
> clarified. Or is your objection more of a
> methodological one? If this is
> the case, I hope your new translation will include
> some kind of
> introductory essay making your objections clear or
> explaining how the new
> translation provides insight into this question.
>
> But in the meantime, it would be most interesting to
> hear at least a precis
> of what you are alluding to in your post to this
> list.
>
> Regards,
> Nate Roberts
>
> At 07:15 AM 6/20/2005, you wrote:
> >The long awaited unabridged english translation of
> the
> >original french text 'Histoire de la folie a l'age
> >classique' is due for release this week by
> Routledge
> >publishing; englished as 'History of Madness in the
> >Classical age'.
> >
> >I, along with Andrew Scull, although for very
> >different reasons, am convinced that its reception
> >will be an unfavourable, even hostile one. Scull
> >believed- hoped- that a full length english
> >translation of the original french text would
> finally
> >put it, and the controversy it spawned, to rest by
> >bringing to light in the anglo-saxon world the
> >inadequacies of its arguments, "resting", as it
> does,
> >"on the shakiest of scholary foudations", "riddled
> >with errors of fact and interpretation", and thus
> >presenting a "grave danger" to "credulous" young
> minds
> >by alienating them from 'the truth'. I, with Allen
> >Megil, see it as "unacceptable" to "normal schools
> of
> >scholary standards" precisely because it does not
> >accept, from the outset, prior to any analysis, the
> >normal standards of acceptable scholarship, but
> >rather, holds them in abeyance and even calls them
> >into question (as an effect attendent upon it, of
> the
> >order of 'results'). In any case, "its appearance
> will
> >doubtless provoke a reassessment of Fouaults work
> on
> >the history of psychiatry."
> >
> >Michael Bibby
> >
> >Send instant messages to your online friends
> http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
> >_______________________________________________
> >Foucault-L mailing list
>
> Have you seen the <http://www.lcurve.org/>L-Curve?
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com