ons, 19 09 2007 kl. 20:53 +0200, skrev Frank Ejby Poulsen:
..........
> Someone else you should pay respect to, beside me and you, is Foucault
> himself. You can disagree with him, but calling him "a professional
> "trouble
> maker"" is showing disrespect to a deceased person. They also deserve
> respect when commenting their thoughts, no matter how insignificant
> these
> may seem to you.
I think calling Foucault a professional trouble maker is a great honour
to him. He has again and again told us: Don't believe in scientific
common sense understanding of your past (and present). If that is not
professional trouble making, nothing would be. I love Foucault for his
PROFESSIONAL trouble making.
>
> I disagree with the "imprecise" character. Doesn't he seem "imprecise"
> to
> you simply because you are not reading him with all due precision to
> his
> work? I confess that I thought a bit the same before. However, now, I
> am
> trying myself to do an archaeology, and I find his writings
> surprisingly
> precise, once one has passed his endless negative sentences.
Well, well, ... Sometimes he is clear, and working with his texts makes
them often much clearer, but sometimes he is not. And that is no
surprise: He thought in a new way creating new objects, and therefore he
often twists the words (cf. our discussion about enonce upon which we
still do not agree), and often he "went on discovery in new land having
no words for the strange creature he met". A good example is ch. 4 and 6
in Les Mots et Les Choses. They are extremely difficult to grasp, partly
because he sometimes is not carefull with his phrases, partly because he
really expresses new thoughts which the language is not suited to. Or,
even worse: Raymoud Roussel. And le pense du dehors. Etc. I think, if he
were always clear, he would not have been so radically innovative.
>
> Otherwise, concerning mathematics and precision, your comment smells a
> lot
> like some good old Sokal warmed up. To which I won't answer.
>
> Amateur comments are more than welcomed anywhere, I am myself an
> amateur,
> and in a way we all are always, but I do think that the moderator of
> this
> list should do something to filtrate comments of that nature. Your
> tone is
> absolutely inappropriate!
Please, no flaming ... also keep in mind the preface of the reprint of
Historie de la Folie, where Foucault says that he won't determine how
people read his work.
Flemming
..........
> Someone else you should pay respect to, beside me and you, is Foucault
> himself. You can disagree with him, but calling him "a professional
> "trouble
> maker"" is showing disrespect to a deceased person. They also deserve
> respect when commenting their thoughts, no matter how insignificant
> these
> may seem to you.
I think calling Foucault a professional trouble maker is a great honour
to him. He has again and again told us: Don't believe in scientific
common sense understanding of your past (and present). If that is not
professional trouble making, nothing would be. I love Foucault for his
PROFESSIONAL trouble making.
>
> I disagree with the "imprecise" character. Doesn't he seem "imprecise"
> to
> you simply because you are not reading him with all due precision to
> his
> work? I confess that I thought a bit the same before. However, now, I
> am
> trying myself to do an archaeology, and I find his writings
> surprisingly
> precise, once one has passed his endless negative sentences.
Well, well, ... Sometimes he is clear, and working with his texts makes
them often much clearer, but sometimes he is not. And that is no
surprise: He thought in a new way creating new objects, and therefore he
often twists the words (cf. our discussion about enonce upon which we
still do not agree), and often he "went on discovery in new land having
no words for the strange creature he met". A good example is ch. 4 and 6
in Les Mots et Les Choses. They are extremely difficult to grasp, partly
because he sometimes is not carefull with his phrases, partly because he
really expresses new thoughts which the language is not suited to. Or,
even worse: Raymoud Roussel. And le pense du dehors. Etc. I think, if he
were always clear, he would not have been so radically innovative.
>
> Otherwise, concerning mathematics and precision, your comment smells a
> lot
> like some good old Sokal warmed up. To which I won't answer.
>
> Amateur comments are more than welcomed anywhere, I am myself an
> amateur,
> and in a way we all are always, but I do think that the moderator of
> this
> list should do something to filtrate comments of that nature. Your
> tone is
> absolutely inappropriate!
Please, no flaming ... also keep in mind the preface of the reprint of
Historie de la Folie, where Foucault says that he won't determine how
people read his work.
Flemming