The mytho-poetry of language furnishes us with an expression which recommends itself (I believe it translates a french form of expression which it was Foucault's writings to forge): historical ontology.
Yes, I was hoping somebody would correct me on this point, that introduction by Drefus performs the literary work which I attributed to the translator which as you remind was done by Sheriden (for me it didnt really matter, all that was important are these connections you see with me are established in this preface with the concerns of the mode of being of historical ontology).
Now, as to the situation or structure, mode of being, of historical ontology, what presents itself in my view- my archaeologically mind- is the model of the trinity in the form of the so called 'mystery of the cross' so much talked about by all the early church fathers and stressed later by the medieval mystics. Call it, a paradigmatic model, in so far as the dream work of allegory is concerned with the picturing forth of spiritual struggles of an earthly existence in a way which integrates the platonic tripartite of past, present and future, with a view to them all at once, eternity in a moment: the form of expression which the historical theologian Alister Mcgrath used when called upon by Richard Dawkins, during an interview for his documentary series The Root of All Evil (The God Delusion, and The Virus of Faith), to justify the faith he professes- with a religious zeal- upon the grounds of evidentiary reasons was "I dont believe in him because I see
him, I believe in him because I see by his light". The mysetery of the cross and the miracle of the trinity was sanctified by the Council of Nicea. But when Ceaser claimed the epitaph of God for himself when Rome crowned him with the title of their dictator, he was killed for his hubris: only in death would he achieve what was denied him in life, the status of a god.
Ceaser: "I am no man because I am everyman and thus am I a god" (Caligula, 1979).
--- On Fri, 18/7/08, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] translation question: Historical Being and Time
> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Received: Friday, 18 July, 2008, 11:15 PM
> Hi Michael, and thanks for your comments.
>
> Unfortunately, I only have the California Edition of
> 'Mental Illness and Psychology,' which has no
> translator 'Introduction' - it was translated by
> Alan Sheridan - but does have a lenghty 'Forward'
> by Hubert Dreyfus who, to my mind, projects his reading of
> Heidegger onto Foucault in his discussion of both the 1954
> and 1962 version of the book. In that sense, I haven't
> found Dreyfus' comment of much use in my attempt to
> grasp Foucault use of the term "experience."
>
> Regards,
> Kevin.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: shmickeyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] translation question:
> Historical Being and Time
> >
> > I dont want to resolve these difficulties for you
> Kevin, I just want to
> > allow this problem to emerge. A problem similar to the
> one which the Use
> > of Pleasure presents you with was confronted by the
> Translator (I cant
> > remember who it was as I dont have the text at hand)
> of the revised
> > edition of Foucault's first book ('Psychology
> and Mental Illness'): the
> > problem concerned two things, both of which are
> intimately related, the
> > concept of Being and the notion of Historicity which
> informs his study,
> > and in the terms of which it is fleshed out. The
> translator points out
> > that the striking difference between the original text
> and the revised
> > one, that is, what this revision consisted in, was the
> evolution of the
> > notion of 'forms of experience'; he points out
> that it is a subtle,
> > highly nuanced difference, one which concerns the use
> of language, its
> > forms of expression, its connotations. The translator
> attributes this
> > evolution of the language of the original
> > text to the influence of Heidegger's Being and
> Time which Foucault was
> > supposed to be grappling with (and I think he also
> invokes Kants
> > synthetic-analytic concept of 'condition of
> possibility' in this
> > connection also). It would be worth consulting the
> translators
> > introduction of this text where the problems you face
> emerge in such a
> > way as to throw some light on them...
> >
> > Of course, language is not always fixed and precise;
> sometimes it
> > staggers beneath the weight of the uncertainty and
> multiplicity of its
> > meanings, and it is important to allow these
> ambiguities to emerge as the
> > lines of life are never quite filled in, but are
> sketched out ever more
> > fully.
> >
> >
> > A problem which Foucault's writings address rather
> obliquely is
> > summarized by him when he said: "I have being
> trying to escape a
> > philosophy of the subject through a genealogy of the
> subject" (or words
> > to that effect). This, I believe, goes some way in
> explaining the burden
> > which his language is forced to bare when it abandons
> the resources of
> > the philosophy of psychology and psychology of
> philosophy (i.e., history
> > of ideas) to evolve other resources for understanding
> 'historical beings'
> > and risk a new language.
> >
> > --- On Fri, 18/7/08, Kevin Turner
> <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Subject: [Foucault-L] translation question
> >> To: "Mailing-list"
> <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Received: Friday, 18 July, 2008, 8:38 PM
> >> I have a query concerning a translation in
> "The Use of
> >> Pleasure."
> >>
> >> In the English translation, Foucault states that
> what he
> >> planned was 'a history of the experience of
> >> sexuality’ (UP: 4).
> >>
> >> In Beatrice Han's discussion of this text in
> >> "Foucault's Critical Project," she
> modifies
> >> the translation so that it states that what
> Foucault
> >> planned was 'a history of sexuality as an
> >> experience' (Han, 2002: 153).
> >>
> >> This may seem like a subtle difference but I think
> a lot
> >> hangs on whether Foucault is understood to be
> doing "a
> >> history of the experience of sexuality" or
> "a
> >> history of sexuality as an experience."
> >>
> >> Thoughts on which is the better translation, or
> whether
> >> both translations are legitimate, or which
> translation best
> >> captures what Foucault did, etc. would be most
> welcome.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Kevin.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> >
> > Start at the new Yahoo!7 for a better online
> experience.
> > www.yahoo7.com.au
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> GET FREE 5GB EMAIL - Check out spam free email with many
> cool features!
> Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out more!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
Start at the new Yahoo!7 for a better online experience. www.yahoo7.com.au
Yes, I was hoping somebody would correct me on this point, that introduction by Drefus performs the literary work which I attributed to the translator which as you remind was done by Sheriden (for me it didnt really matter, all that was important are these connections you see with me are established in this preface with the concerns of the mode of being of historical ontology).
Now, as to the situation or structure, mode of being, of historical ontology, what presents itself in my view- my archaeologically mind- is the model of the trinity in the form of the so called 'mystery of the cross' so much talked about by all the early church fathers and stressed later by the medieval mystics. Call it, a paradigmatic model, in so far as the dream work of allegory is concerned with the picturing forth of spiritual struggles of an earthly existence in a way which integrates the platonic tripartite of past, present and future, with a view to them all at once, eternity in a moment: the form of expression which the historical theologian Alister Mcgrath used when called upon by Richard Dawkins, during an interview for his documentary series The Root of All Evil (The God Delusion, and The Virus of Faith), to justify the faith he professes- with a religious zeal- upon the grounds of evidentiary reasons was "I dont believe in him because I see
him, I believe in him because I see by his light". The mysetery of the cross and the miracle of the trinity was sanctified by the Council of Nicea. But when Ceaser claimed the epitaph of God for himself when Rome crowned him with the title of their dictator, he was killed for his hubris: only in death would he achieve what was denied him in life, the status of a god.
Ceaser: "I am no man because I am everyman and thus am I a god" (Caligula, 1979).
--- On Fri, 18/7/08, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] translation question: Historical Being and Time
> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Received: Friday, 18 July, 2008, 11:15 PM
> Hi Michael, and thanks for your comments.
>
> Unfortunately, I only have the California Edition of
> 'Mental Illness and Psychology,' which has no
> translator 'Introduction' - it was translated by
> Alan Sheridan - but does have a lenghty 'Forward'
> by Hubert Dreyfus who, to my mind, projects his reading of
> Heidegger onto Foucault in his discussion of both the 1954
> and 1962 version of the book. In that sense, I haven't
> found Dreyfus' comment of much use in my attempt to
> grasp Foucault use of the term "experience."
>
> Regards,
> Kevin.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: shmickeyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] translation question:
> Historical Being and Time
> >
> > I dont want to resolve these difficulties for you
> Kevin, I just want to
> > allow this problem to emerge. A problem similar to the
> one which the Use
> > of Pleasure presents you with was confronted by the
> Translator (I cant
> > remember who it was as I dont have the text at hand)
> of the revised
> > edition of Foucault's first book ('Psychology
> and Mental Illness'): the
> > problem concerned two things, both of which are
> intimately related, the
> > concept of Being and the notion of Historicity which
> informs his study,
> > and in the terms of which it is fleshed out. The
> translator points out
> > that the striking difference between the original text
> and the revised
> > one, that is, what this revision consisted in, was the
> evolution of the
> > notion of 'forms of experience'; he points out
> that it is a subtle,
> > highly nuanced difference, one which concerns the use
> of language, its
> > forms of expression, its connotations. The translator
> attributes this
> > evolution of the language of the original
> > text to the influence of Heidegger's Being and
> Time which Foucault was
> > supposed to be grappling with (and I think he also
> invokes Kants
> > synthetic-analytic concept of 'condition of
> possibility' in this
> > connection also). It would be worth consulting the
> translators
> > introduction of this text where the problems you face
> emerge in such a
> > way as to throw some light on them...
> >
> > Of course, language is not always fixed and precise;
> sometimes it
> > staggers beneath the weight of the uncertainty and
> multiplicity of its
> > meanings, and it is important to allow these
> ambiguities to emerge as the
> > lines of life are never quite filled in, but are
> sketched out ever more
> > fully.
> >
> >
> > A problem which Foucault's writings address rather
> obliquely is
> > summarized by him when he said: "I have being
> trying to escape a
> > philosophy of the subject through a genealogy of the
> subject" (or words
> > to that effect). This, I believe, goes some way in
> explaining the burden
> > which his language is forced to bare when it abandons
> the resources of
> > the philosophy of psychology and psychology of
> philosophy (i.e., history
> > of ideas) to evolve other resources for understanding
> 'historical beings'
> > and risk a new language.
> >
> > --- On Fri, 18/7/08, Kevin Turner
> <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Subject: [Foucault-L] translation question
> >> To: "Mailing-list"
> <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Received: Friday, 18 July, 2008, 8:38 PM
> >> I have a query concerning a translation in
> "The Use of
> >> Pleasure."
> >>
> >> In the English translation, Foucault states that
> what he
> >> planned was 'a history of the experience of
> >> sexuality’ (UP: 4).
> >>
> >> In Beatrice Han's discussion of this text in
> >> "Foucault's Critical Project," she
> modifies
> >> the translation so that it states that what
> Foucault
> >> planned was 'a history of sexuality as an
> >> experience' (Han, 2002: 153).
> >>
> >> This may seem like a subtle difference but I think
> a lot
> >> hangs on whether Foucault is understood to be
> doing "a
> >> history of the experience of sexuality" or
> "a
> >> history of sexuality as an experience."
> >>
> >> Thoughts on which is the better translation, or
> whether
> >> both translations are legitimate, or which
> translation best
> >> captures what Foucault did, etc. would be most
> welcome.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Kevin.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> >
> > Start at the new Yahoo!7 for a better online
> experience.
> > www.yahoo7.com.au
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> GET FREE 5GB EMAIL - Check out spam free email with many
> cool features!
> Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out more!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
Start at the new Yahoo!7 for a better online experience. www.yahoo7.com.au