Responding to myself, if we were to try and identify
the particular structure and organization of the
historical process which I have tried- rather crudely
and abruptly- to delineate around the vertical axis of
'normal scholary standards' which the textual surfaces
of madness and civilization represents a clear
departure from by the distance it establishes from
them, we may well borrow the literary model of the
'Narrenshieff'. This is an interesting direction to
head in, (as it also comprehends the former discussion
concerning the mode of existence of the narrenshieff
as well as the implications that has for our sense of
historical awareness), and it remains open to us to
explore.
If brief, then, we might say, even if only for the
sake of its 'being said', that these 'satiric vessels'
were, indeed, in some measure, still are, cultural
motiefs, historical patterns which keep on forming
again, never assuming the same form in the same place,
but rather, polymorphic forms distributed accross
space and time. As a matter of fact, they do exist
these satarical vessels, with their crew of imaginary-
self-deceived- heros, embarked on a great symbolic
voyage upon the oceans of time- at once delivered up
to both a certain as well as uncertain fate- which
bring them, if not the fortune they seek, which is a
fools gold, then at least the figure of their destiny
or truth as madness undone. This is the dream which it
is sculls to nurture, the begining of foucaults
untimely end, an equisite tragedy indeed- all the more
tragic in that it was preventable, this fatalistic
impulse which tends to destruction, a tragic tendency
born along by error.
The tide of the 'foucault effect' is seeing a strange
reversal- are we really that surprised? (in a world
where truth is the stake of material struggles.)
--- michael bibby <shmickeyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
=== message truncated ===
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
the particular structure and organization of the
historical process which I have tried- rather crudely
and abruptly- to delineate around the vertical axis of
'normal scholary standards' which the textual surfaces
of madness and civilization represents a clear
departure from by the distance it establishes from
them, we may well borrow the literary model of the
'Narrenshieff'. This is an interesting direction to
head in, (as it also comprehends the former discussion
concerning the mode of existence of the narrenshieff
as well as the implications that has for our sense of
historical awareness), and it remains open to us to
explore.
If brief, then, we might say, even if only for the
sake of its 'being said', that these 'satiric vessels'
were, indeed, in some measure, still are, cultural
motiefs, historical patterns which keep on forming
again, never assuming the same form in the same place,
but rather, polymorphic forms distributed accross
space and time. As a matter of fact, they do exist
these satarical vessels, with their crew of imaginary-
self-deceived- heros, embarked on a great symbolic
voyage upon the oceans of time- at once delivered up
to both a certain as well as uncertain fate- which
bring them, if not the fortune they seek, which is a
fools gold, then at least the figure of their destiny
or truth as madness undone. This is the dream which it
is sculls to nurture, the begining of foucaults
untimely end, an equisite tragedy indeed- all the more
tragic in that it was preventable, this fatalistic
impulse which tends to destruction, a tragic tendency
born along by error.
The tide of the 'foucault effect' is seeing a strange
reversal- are we really that surprised? (in a world
where truth is the stake of material struggles.)
--- michael bibby <shmickeyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
=== message truncated ===
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com