Besides, I don't think it would be unproblematic to go for a "true Foucault"
as I don't think one could find or especially Foucault himself would desire
a true, stable objective source for his thought. He wasn't just indulging in
cheap worldplay when he said "I write to have no face".
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> I understand Kevin but I wasn't intending what you think I said.
> What I meant was that people got these flawed notions that Foucault was
> proposing a sexual dandyism and generalizing Greek techniques of the self by
> reading just those two books when really he was just talking about specific
> instances with those rather than the entire techniques of self, and I
> thought that The Hermeneutics of the Subject simply showed the larger
> framework he was working in and served to demonstrate that his conception of
> greek practices were not limited to sex but much larger and broader
> concerns, a broader and and very accurate conception they give little credit
> for.
> But yes, your points are very true.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> Chetan,
>>
>> For a long time, the only text I had read by Foucault was "Discipline and
>> Punish," and from this reading, I think I formed a very clear and coherent
>> understanding of what Foucault was doing with this book, of the kind of work
>> it was carrying out.
>>
>> Somewhat later, I began to read all the texts available in English, and
>> consequently formed a different understanding of what was taking place in
>> the pages of DP.
>>
>> Is this second reading more accurate than the first? Is it a reading
>> which, due to the extra material, produces a more fuller, more detailed,
>> more sophisticated, and truer understanding of what takes place in DP? I'm
>> not sure. For me it simply represents a different understanding, one that in
>> no way invalidates my original reading of the text, but which has certainly
>> modified that reading.
>>
>> This also holds for my undertaking of what happens in DP following my
>> reading of the Collège de France lectures that took place prior to its
>> publication (Psychiatric Power, Abnormal), and which formed the background
>> research for it.
>>
>> Does all this extra data bring me "closer" to the "real" Foucault as this
>> is presented in Discipline and Punish? Once again, I'm not sure. But I don't
>> think so. I think that the difference between my reading of that text 14
>> years ago and now is not one of accuracy, but one of interpretation.
>>
>> So, I think I would respond to your question by saying that "Hermeneutic
>> of the Subject" does not so much reveal the "true light" of UP and CS but,
>> rather, opens up a different aperture (grid of intelligibility) through
>> which these texts can be read and understood.
>>
>> There are only interpretations of interpretations...
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kevin.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages
>> Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click.
>> Visit http://www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
>
>
> --
> Chetan Vemuri
> West Des Moines, IA
> aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
> (515)-418-2771
> "You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
> world"
>
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(515)-418-2771
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"
as I don't think one could find or especially Foucault himself would desire
a true, stable objective source for his thought. He wasn't just indulging in
cheap worldplay when he said "I write to have no face".
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> I understand Kevin but I wasn't intending what you think I said.
> What I meant was that people got these flawed notions that Foucault was
> proposing a sexual dandyism and generalizing Greek techniques of the self by
> reading just those two books when really he was just talking about specific
> instances with those rather than the entire techniques of self, and I
> thought that The Hermeneutics of the Subject simply showed the larger
> framework he was working in and served to demonstrate that his conception of
> greek practices were not limited to sex but much larger and broader
> concerns, a broader and and very accurate conception they give little credit
> for.
> But yes, your points are very true.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> Chetan,
>>
>> For a long time, the only text I had read by Foucault was "Discipline and
>> Punish," and from this reading, I think I formed a very clear and coherent
>> understanding of what Foucault was doing with this book, of the kind of work
>> it was carrying out.
>>
>> Somewhat later, I began to read all the texts available in English, and
>> consequently formed a different understanding of what was taking place in
>> the pages of DP.
>>
>> Is this second reading more accurate than the first? Is it a reading
>> which, due to the extra material, produces a more fuller, more detailed,
>> more sophisticated, and truer understanding of what takes place in DP? I'm
>> not sure. For me it simply represents a different understanding, one that in
>> no way invalidates my original reading of the text, but which has certainly
>> modified that reading.
>>
>> This also holds for my undertaking of what happens in DP following my
>> reading of the Collège de France lectures that took place prior to its
>> publication (Psychiatric Power, Abnormal), and which formed the background
>> research for it.
>>
>> Does all this extra data bring me "closer" to the "real" Foucault as this
>> is presented in Discipline and Punish? Once again, I'm not sure. But I don't
>> think so. I think that the difference between my reading of that text 14
>> years ago and now is not one of accuracy, but one of interpretation.
>>
>> So, I think I would respond to your question by saying that "Hermeneutic
>> of the Subject" does not so much reveal the "true light" of UP and CS but,
>> rather, opens up a different aperture (grid of intelligibility) through
>> which these texts can be read and understood.
>>
>> There are only interpretations of interpretations...
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kevin.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages
>> Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click.
>> Visit http://www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
>
>
> --
> Chetan Vemuri
> West Des Moines, IA
> aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
> (515)-418-2771
> "You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
> world"
>
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(515)-418-2771
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"