Glen, hi....
When i say nietzschean thinker, i am trying to state that Foucault is marking some diferences between being a philosopher and being nietzschean. Not every philosopher is a nietzschean one, even with the knowledge of
Nietzsches work. Being nietzschean implicates somekind of embodied
philosophie, and this philosophie always points out to the prominence
of the event. It seems that he is saying that being interested about the event is what a philospher should be worried nowadays, but for him it is needed to think about that through Nietzsches focus. As he seems to put it: being nietzschean is more complicated than being a philosopher (and Foucaults work is perhaps the best example of it): a nietzschean philosopher is the one that thinks philosophical issues through the idea of the event, and this points to reorganize the present on its own actuality. A nietzschean is a philosopher that thinks about processes, movemnts, and forces that are mererly unknow but need some diagnosis to unscramble what is happening on present tense.
Maybe you should get that interview. Because it is framed on japanese theatre (Watanabe tries to iniciate Foucault on japanese theatrical forms). They constantly talk about theatre and its philosophical implications. Related to that, Foucault points that today the philosophers (the nietzschean ones) must answer questions like who we are? and what is happening? (what occurs?) instead of questiosn like what is the soul? or what is eternity?. For him this is a philosophy of the present, a philosophie of the event, a philosophie of what is going on... and then he says that in fact it is needed to retake -prowling around philosophy- what theater is up to, because -as he says- theater is always about the event. Foucault remarks that the theater paradox consist in the fact that theater is always repeating the event (every night) and repeats its representation on eternity or in an undefined time: theater is the reference of some repeated event... "Theater captures the event and
puts it on scene"
cheers from mexico
adr
----- Mensaje original ----
De: Glen Fuller <gfuller1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Para: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Enviado: martes, 23 de enero, 2007 5:15:00
Asunto: Re: [Foucault-L] DE 234 article?
Adriano,
I thank you for your reply. It is very useful indeed. He says somewhere else
that he is not a philosopher (page 249 of the Ethics edited collection, I
think. bad notes, sorry!!). Very odd. I wonder if this is Foucault being
bashful under the burden of anticipated critique?
By "nietzschean thinker" do you mean in respect to his historical
methodology as a "genealogical descent" or with regards to time (event vs
eternity) do you mean a thinker of the untimely? I guess that is asking
almost the same question twice...
What is remarkable is the use of 'scene' in the title of the piece. It is
only superficial of course and entirely coincidental, but half my
dissertation is organised around thinking about an event-based conception of
the "scene" within a particular strand of popular culture. More in the
concrescent sense of an event than in the discontinuous (structuralist)
sense. I use it as a hinge to mediate between the historical events (in
Foucault's sense of eventalization) and the contemporary present day sense
of the scene (within which I insinuated myself through fieldwork).
Ciao,
glen.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adriano" <oxanairda@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] DE 234 article?
Glen;
You are refering to "La scene de la philosophie", april 1978 (where M.
Watanabe interviews Foucault) It is important to remark that F doesnot
describes himself as a philosopher. As far as it is shown on the spanish
translation, F says that his is interested in the event, not in eternity,
and thats what doesnot make him a philosopher in the classic way, or maybe
not even a philosopher at all, or a good philosopher. I think that this
statement is rather diferent to say that he is putting himself as a
philosopher, but that doesnot mean either that he is putting himself as
something else than a nietzschean thinker. Those days F was very careful to
take some margins about himself (i could bet that by that time he noticed
that he was somehow sick) and other philosophers (to me it sounds that he
was taking distance about Deleuze, but not in a combative way: on contrary,
to say that D is not like hime, that he is really a philosopher -remarking
that he (i mean F) is not"-, but
this sounds not as a "victim discourse", F ment that)
Cheers and forgive my broken english
adr
----- Mensaje original ----
De: Glen Fuller <gfuller1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Para: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Enviado: lunes, 22 de enero, 2007 20:06:04
Asunto: [Foucault-L] DE 234 article?
hi,
does anyone have the reference for the dits et ecrits publication #234? or
know if it has been translated into english? according to the 'event' entry
in the "key concepts" glosssary in clare's book (2005, _michel foucault_,
p136) it is where Foucault describes himself as a philosopher of the event.
(I am organising some stuff for a reading group on Foucault's concept of the
"event" (through Deleuze and others) and secondly on his eventalization
methodology as minor science of the archive.)
Ciao,
glen.
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
Regístrate ya - http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.4/643 - Release Date: 1/21/2007
5:12 PM
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
Regístrate ya - http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com/
When i say nietzschean thinker, i am trying to state that Foucault is marking some diferences between being a philosopher and being nietzschean. Not every philosopher is a nietzschean one, even with the knowledge of
Nietzsches work. Being nietzschean implicates somekind of embodied
philosophie, and this philosophie always points out to the prominence
of the event. It seems that he is saying that being interested about the event is what a philospher should be worried nowadays, but for him it is needed to think about that through Nietzsches focus. As he seems to put it: being nietzschean is more complicated than being a philosopher (and Foucaults work is perhaps the best example of it): a nietzschean philosopher is the one that thinks philosophical issues through the idea of the event, and this points to reorganize the present on its own actuality. A nietzschean is a philosopher that thinks about processes, movemnts, and forces that are mererly unknow but need some diagnosis to unscramble what is happening on present tense.
Maybe you should get that interview. Because it is framed on japanese theatre (Watanabe tries to iniciate Foucault on japanese theatrical forms). They constantly talk about theatre and its philosophical implications. Related to that, Foucault points that today the philosophers (the nietzschean ones) must answer questions like who we are? and what is happening? (what occurs?) instead of questiosn like what is the soul? or what is eternity?. For him this is a philosophy of the present, a philosophie of the event, a philosophie of what is going on... and then he says that in fact it is needed to retake -prowling around philosophy- what theater is up to, because -as he says- theater is always about the event. Foucault remarks that the theater paradox consist in the fact that theater is always repeating the event (every night) and repeats its representation on eternity or in an undefined time: theater is the reference of some repeated event... "Theater captures the event and
puts it on scene"
cheers from mexico
adr
----- Mensaje original ----
De: Glen Fuller <gfuller1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Para: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Enviado: martes, 23 de enero, 2007 5:15:00
Asunto: Re: [Foucault-L] DE 234 article?
Adriano,
I thank you for your reply. It is very useful indeed. He says somewhere else
that he is not a philosopher (page 249 of the Ethics edited collection, I
think. bad notes, sorry!!). Very odd. I wonder if this is Foucault being
bashful under the burden of anticipated critique?
By "nietzschean thinker" do you mean in respect to his historical
methodology as a "genealogical descent" or with regards to time (event vs
eternity) do you mean a thinker of the untimely? I guess that is asking
almost the same question twice...
What is remarkable is the use of 'scene' in the title of the piece. It is
only superficial of course and entirely coincidental, but half my
dissertation is organised around thinking about an event-based conception of
the "scene" within a particular strand of popular culture. More in the
concrescent sense of an event than in the discontinuous (structuralist)
sense. I use it as a hinge to mediate between the historical events (in
Foucault's sense of eventalization) and the contemporary present day sense
of the scene (within which I insinuated myself through fieldwork).
Ciao,
glen.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adriano" <oxanairda@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] DE 234 article?
Glen;
You are refering to "La scene de la philosophie", april 1978 (where M.
Watanabe interviews Foucault) It is important to remark that F doesnot
describes himself as a philosopher. As far as it is shown on the spanish
translation, F says that his is interested in the event, not in eternity,
and thats what doesnot make him a philosopher in the classic way, or maybe
not even a philosopher at all, or a good philosopher. I think that this
statement is rather diferent to say that he is putting himself as a
philosopher, but that doesnot mean either that he is putting himself as
something else than a nietzschean thinker. Those days F was very careful to
take some margins about himself (i could bet that by that time he noticed
that he was somehow sick) and other philosophers (to me it sounds that he
was taking distance about Deleuze, but not in a combative way: on contrary,
to say that D is not like hime, that he is really a philosopher -remarking
that he (i mean F) is not"-, but
this sounds not as a "victim discourse", F ment that)
Cheers and forgive my broken english
adr
----- Mensaje original ----
De: Glen Fuller <gfuller1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Para: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Enviado: lunes, 22 de enero, 2007 20:06:04
Asunto: [Foucault-L] DE 234 article?
hi,
does anyone have the reference for the dits et ecrits publication #234? or
know if it has been translated into english? according to the 'event' entry
in the "key concepts" glosssary in clare's book (2005, _michel foucault_,
p136) it is where Foucault describes himself as a philosopher of the event.
(I am organising some stuff for a reading group on Foucault's concept of the
"event" (through Deleuze and others) and secondly on his eventalization
methodology as minor science of the archive.)
Ciao,
glen.
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
Regístrate ya - http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.4/643 - Release Date: 1/21/2007
5:12 PM
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
Regístrate ya - http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com/