By looking at systems of thought, if we keep on breaking them down,
attributing a cause to every effect, we can never come to an
indivisible cause; except by taking a leap with a God figure, the
Mover, that necessarily needs to be indivisible. Some sort of static
'being' is necessary for concepts (unless the concepts themselves are
static, either way). Faith is involved in concepts. People have
faith in causality, for example. Concepts involve a spiritual
transformation. By addressing how forms of knowledge are created does
Foucault also address how we form our gaze on a particular relation?
Since a 'theory of knowledge' implies a 'theory of life' and
vice-versa, they can be seen as dependant on one another. They circle
each other and push each other to develop more and more layers of
meaning. By bringing attention to the creation of systems in various
periods, Foucault allows for a space to be noticed between the
'individual' (conceptual individual, individual in the real seems
unclear, fuzzy), and the system, creating more avenues for our
conceptual framework to explore.
Looking at the material makeup of the world, change seems to be more
apparent than stillness. Even energy acts as both a particle and a
wave, both being in constant exchange with one another. I extend this
to Foucault's historical analysis, in a very simplified way seeing
how the forms of say power change, not power itself. To make things
more clear power as concept equals particle, power as historical forms
equals wave (I'm probably offending Foucault scholars, scientists and
mathematicians alike, but I sincerely mean no harm nor offence. It is
just an analogy to help me better describe what I mean).
Anyways…energy is change. Nothing presupposes energy. To say that
something created energy assumes the presence of energy, whether
mental/material, particle/wave.
Conceptual particles and material/'real' waves seem to clash with each
other, hence my issue. It's an issue of attunement. Concepts and
life cannot be separated. Power as an example again, "Power produces;
it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of
truth". These truths reinforce power in the real and the cycle
continues, forever changing but the concept remains. As concepts
involve spirituality, a static 'creator' is necessary only if you
eliminate the material (wave) conditions out of existence. Faith in
concepts is spiritual. Therefore the spiritual is tied up with
reality/life to form existence. Can Foucault's work be seen as
creating an ethics of existence, in which we orientate our gaze
towards that which is (the space that is between concept and life; the
space that is left by challenging concepts)? By breaking our
conceptual egg (by challenging systems of thought and organization),
we allow ourselves a full range of sight. Thereby tapping into the
artistic qualities of our creations. The more we break down systems,
the more of a challenge we are providing for our conceptual framework.
Change is beating on the door of the unchanging.
By addressing 'theory of knowledge' and 'theory of life' together in
existence, can Foucault's work be seen as focusing on how one can turn
themselves around (attune their mind and body through concepts) to see
the truth of existence (which is always, forever a work in progress)?
This would necessarily involve a spiritual transformation because
spirituality is the nature of the mind, concept, soul, etc.
…Aside…I see the implications of Logos and temporality in Foucault
through the use and analysis of the static 'concept', in itself, for
example power as it is a concept. Which since concepts are static, in
themselves, not the forms that they take or how they change in the
real, and seem to behave like particles leads to structured time.
Time as it is normally spoken of; the time of our lives. Through the
forever changing historical analysis, time as it is normally spoken of
has no bearing because change is constant and forever. Time seems to
become an inadequate measure of change (if a measure of it is even
possible). My justification for this is because I separate the two
aspects of Logos: mind & matter, soul & fire, particle & wave.
Therefore attuned as Logos it implies multiple temporalities and since
Foucault deals with both aspects of the Logos, understanding his
relationship with time is essential. This may seem simplistic but for
me there seems to be much more than meets the eye in regards to
Foucault's relationship with time, and I'm just trying to understand.
Teresa
attributing a cause to every effect, we can never come to an
indivisible cause; except by taking a leap with a God figure, the
Mover, that necessarily needs to be indivisible. Some sort of static
'being' is necessary for concepts (unless the concepts themselves are
static, either way). Faith is involved in concepts. People have
faith in causality, for example. Concepts involve a spiritual
transformation. By addressing how forms of knowledge are created does
Foucault also address how we form our gaze on a particular relation?
Since a 'theory of knowledge' implies a 'theory of life' and
vice-versa, they can be seen as dependant on one another. They circle
each other and push each other to develop more and more layers of
meaning. By bringing attention to the creation of systems in various
periods, Foucault allows for a space to be noticed between the
'individual' (conceptual individual, individual in the real seems
unclear, fuzzy), and the system, creating more avenues for our
conceptual framework to explore.
Looking at the material makeup of the world, change seems to be more
apparent than stillness. Even energy acts as both a particle and a
wave, both being in constant exchange with one another. I extend this
to Foucault's historical analysis, in a very simplified way seeing
how the forms of say power change, not power itself. To make things
more clear power as concept equals particle, power as historical forms
equals wave (I'm probably offending Foucault scholars, scientists and
mathematicians alike, but I sincerely mean no harm nor offence. It is
just an analogy to help me better describe what I mean).
Anyways…energy is change. Nothing presupposes energy. To say that
something created energy assumes the presence of energy, whether
mental/material, particle/wave.
Conceptual particles and material/'real' waves seem to clash with each
other, hence my issue. It's an issue of attunement. Concepts and
life cannot be separated. Power as an example again, "Power produces;
it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of
truth". These truths reinforce power in the real and the cycle
continues, forever changing but the concept remains. As concepts
involve spirituality, a static 'creator' is necessary only if you
eliminate the material (wave) conditions out of existence. Faith in
concepts is spiritual. Therefore the spiritual is tied up with
reality/life to form existence. Can Foucault's work be seen as
creating an ethics of existence, in which we orientate our gaze
towards that which is (the space that is between concept and life; the
space that is left by challenging concepts)? By breaking our
conceptual egg (by challenging systems of thought and organization),
we allow ourselves a full range of sight. Thereby tapping into the
artistic qualities of our creations. The more we break down systems,
the more of a challenge we are providing for our conceptual framework.
Change is beating on the door of the unchanging.
By addressing 'theory of knowledge' and 'theory of life' together in
existence, can Foucault's work be seen as focusing on how one can turn
themselves around (attune their mind and body through concepts) to see
the truth of existence (which is always, forever a work in progress)?
This would necessarily involve a spiritual transformation because
spirituality is the nature of the mind, concept, soul, etc.
…Aside…I see the implications of Logos and temporality in Foucault
through the use and analysis of the static 'concept', in itself, for
example power as it is a concept. Which since concepts are static, in
themselves, not the forms that they take or how they change in the
real, and seem to behave like particles leads to structured time.
Time as it is normally spoken of; the time of our lives. Through the
forever changing historical analysis, time as it is normally spoken of
has no bearing because change is constant and forever. Time seems to
become an inadequate measure of change (if a measure of it is even
possible). My justification for this is because I separate the two
aspects of Logos: mind & matter, soul & fire, particle & wave.
Therefore attuned as Logos it implies multiple temporalities and since
Foucault deals with both aspects of the Logos, understanding his
relationship with time is essential. This may seem simplistic but for
me there seems to be much more than meets the eye in regards to
Foucault's relationship with time, and I'm just trying to understand.
Teresa