Dear Timothy,
thanks for providing me with this info, and helping me to establish that there is indeed a clear relation between these three texts.
And I think you are quite right about the difference in emphasis, and that's why I think that read in conjunction they offer a very interesting description of Foucault critical project (at least as he thought this at this time).
The 'Foucault' text seems to place most emphasis of the question of thought and describes thought as the act that posits a subject and an object. The 'Preface', ts you say, places most emphasis on experience as a process of transformation, whilst 'Modifications,' places more emphasis on "games of truth," and problematisations and practices. It seems to me that this pretty much sums up the design and method of Foucault's historical ontology of ourselves.
Thanks again for taking the time to furnish me (and the list) with this info.
Regards,
Kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: autrement@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 10:39:49 +0800
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Maurice Florence
>
> Kevin,
>
> That text was only published in English originally. But the version in DE
> would seem to based on F's French text, since no translator is mentioned.
> In
> any case, the note says:
>
> "This is the first draft of the general introduction to the *History of
> Sexuality* which should have opened the second volume and which M.
> Foucault
> rejected in favour of a new draft."
>
> That new draft was also published before the books (in *Le Debat*, 1983)
> under the title "Use of Pleasures and Techniques of the Self". But it's
> almost identical to the version in the book.
>
> The interesting thing about the previous version (in Rabinow) is that it
> is
> quite different - especially in the emphasis given to the concept of
> experience (and it's transformation).
>
> Timothy
>
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> And what does it say in DE about 'The Preface to the History of
>> Sexuality,
>> Volume Two'?
>>
>> There is no note to the English translation in "The Foucault Reader;"
>> and
>> in Essential Works (Vol. 1), it simply states that Foucault replace it
>> with
>> a much longer text.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kevin.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: autrement@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Sent: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:07:51 +0800
>>> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Maurice Florence
>>>
>>> PS:
>>>
>>> For those interested in such minutiae, I should clarify that, in fact,
>>> not
>>> all of the first sentence was written by Ewald - he only wrote the part
>>> up
>>> to the word "Kant" (in the English). The second part of the sentence,
>>> describing the work as a "critical history of thought" is by 'M.F.'
>>>
>>> Timothy
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Kevin Turner
>>> <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Timothy,
>>>>
>>>> It may indeed have been your article in Foucault Studies in which I
>>>> read
>>>> this. I have also read it on some on-line versions of this text, but
>>>> like I
>>>> said, I could find no note giving an explanation of where the claim
>>>> came
>>>> from.
>>>>
>>>> The passage you cite does indeed provide this explanation, and is, as
>>>> you
>>>> say, about as "authoritative" as one could wish for.
>>>>
>>>> The reason I asked the question is that it seems to me that the three
>>>> texts
>>>> I mentioned, when read in conjunction, provide a very useful
>>>> intelligibility
>>>> key for understand Foucault. By that I do not mean that they form a
>>>> cypher
>>>> with which to unlock the enigmatic secrets of his books. But I do
>>>> think
>>>> they
>>>> do offer a very useful description - both in terms of a retrospective
>>>> of
>>>> his
>>>> previous work and in terms of how his last work relates to this - of
>>>> how
>>>> to
>>>> understand what it was he was doing..
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks for providing me with this info., and special thanks for
>>>> doing
>>>> the translation (however roughly translated).
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>> Kevin.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: autrement@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Sent: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:11:44 +0800
>>>>> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Maurice Florence
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Kevin,
>>>>>
>>>>> I myself have actually made that claim somewhere in print! The
>>>>> 'evidence',
>>>>> such as it is, is in the note that appears in Dits et Ecrits before
>>>>> that
>>>>> selection. But, unfortunately the 'Essential Foucault' translation
>>>>> only
>>>>> gives us a greatly truncated version of that note.
>>>>>
>>>>> In French, in addition to the info given in the English version, we
>>>>> read
>>>>> (roughly translated): ...At that time, Foucault had written a first
>>>>> version
>>>>> of volume II of HS which he knew would need re-working. A part of the
>>>>> Introduction which he had written for this book was a retrospective
>>>>> presentation of his work. This was the text he gave to Denis Huisman,
>>>>> completed with a short presentation and a bibliography. It was
>>>>> decided
>>>>> to
>>>>> sign it 'Maurice Florence', which gave the obvious abbreviation
>>>>> 'M.F.'...
>>>>>
>>>>> According to further notes (in the French and English editions) only
>>>>> the
>>>>> first sentence of the published text was written by Francois Ewald -
>>>>> the
>>>>> rest was by 'M.F.'
>>>>>
>>>>> Since these notes were compiled by Francois Ewald and Daniel Defert,
>>>>> I
>>>>> take
>>>>> them to be as authoritative as one could wish for.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Timothy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Kevin Turner
>>>>> <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Foucault Listers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have read that the self title essay by Foucault, published under
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> pseudonym of Maurice Florence (EW2: 459-463), was the first of three
>>>>>> version
>>>>>> of what finally became the 'Introduction' to Vol. 2 of the "History
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> Sexuality:" the second being 'The Preface to the History of
>>>>>> Sexuality,
>>>>>> Volume Two' (EW1: 199-205); and the third being Chapter 1,
>>>>>> 'Modifications,'
>>>>>> of the actual 'Introduction' itself (UP: 3-13).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is, whilst I have read this, I have not come upon any
>>>>>> actual
>>>>>> evidence to support this claim – i.e. those who mention it cite no
>>>>>> references.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My question, then, is, firstly, are these text three version of the
>>>>>> same
>>>>>> introduction; and, secondly, where might I find evidence to support
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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!
thanks for providing me with this info, and helping me to establish that there is indeed a clear relation between these three texts.
And I think you are quite right about the difference in emphasis, and that's why I think that read in conjunction they offer a very interesting description of Foucault critical project (at least as he thought this at this time).
The 'Foucault' text seems to place most emphasis of the question of thought and describes thought as the act that posits a subject and an object. The 'Preface', ts you say, places most emphasis on experience as a process of transformation, whilst 'Modifications,' places more emphasis on "games of truth," and problematisations and practices. It seems to me that this pretty much sums up the design and method of Foucault's historical ontology of ourselves.
Thanks again for taking the time to furnish me (and the list) with this info.
Regards,
Kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: autrement@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 10:39:49 +0800
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Maurice Florence
>
> Kevin,
>
> That text was only published in English originally. But the version in DE
> would seem to based on F's French text, since no translator is mentioned.
> In
> any case, the note says:
>
> "This is the first draft of the general introduction to the *History of
> Sexuality* which should have opened the second volume and which M.
> Foucault
> rejected in favour of a new draft."
>
> That new draft was also published before the books (in *Le Debat*, 1983)
> under the title "Use of Pleasures and Techniques of the Self". But it's
> almost identical to the version in the book.
>
> The interesting thing about the previous version (in Rabinow) is that it
> is
> quite different - especially in the emphasis given to the concept of
> experience (and it's transformation).
>
> Timothy
>
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> And what does it say in DE about 'The Preface to the History of
>> Sexuality,
>> Volume Two'?
>>
>> There is no note to the English translation in "The Foucault Reader;"
>> and
>> in Essential Works (Vol. 1), it simply states that Foucault replace it
>> with
>> a much longer text.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kevin.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: autrement@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Sent: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:07:51 +0800
>>> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Maurice Florence
>>>
>>> PS:
>>>
>>> For those interested in such minutiae, I should clarify that, in fact,
>>> not
>>> all of the first sentence was written by Ewald - he only wrote the part
>>> up
>>> to the word "Kant" (in the English). The second part of the sentence,
>>> describing the work as a "critical history of thought" is by 'M.F.'
>>>
>>> Timothy
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Kevin Turner
>>> <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Timothy,
>>>>
>>>> It may indeed have been your article in Foucault Studies in which I
>>>> read
>>>> this. I have also read it on some on-line versions of this text, but
>>>> like I
>>>> said, I could find no note giving an explanation of where the claim
>>>> came
>>>> from.
>>>>
>>>> The passage you cite does indeed provide this explanation, and is, as
>>>> you
>>>> say, about as "authoritative" as one could wish for.
>>>>
>>>> The reason I asked the question is that it seems to me that the three
>>>> texts
>>>> I mentioned, when read in conjunction, provide a very useful
>>>> intelligibility
>>>> key for understand Foucault. By that I do not mean that they form a
>>>> cypher
>>>> with which to unlock the enigmatic secrets of his books. But I do
>>>> think
>>>> they
>>>> do offer a very useful description - both in terms of a retrospective
>>>> of
>>>> his
>>>> previous work and in terms of how his last work relates to this - of
>>>> how
>>>> to
>>>> understand what it was he was doing..
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks for providing me with this info., and special thanks for
>>>> doing
>>>> the translation (however roughly translated).
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>> Kevin.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: autrement@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Sent: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:11:44 +0800
>>>>> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Maurice Florence
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Kevin,
>>>>>
>>>>> I myself have actually made that claim somewhere in print! The
>>>>> 'evidence',
>>>>> such as it is, is in the note that appears in Dits et Ecrits before
>>>>> that
>>>>> selection. But, unfortunately the 'Essential Foucault' translation
>>>>> only
>>>>> gives us a greatly truncated version of that note.
>>>>>
>>>>> In French, in addition to the info given in the English version, we
>>>>> read
>>>>> (roughly translated): ...At that time, Foucault had written a first
>>>>> version
>>>>> of volume II of HS which he knew would need re-working. A part of the
>>>>> Introduction which he had written for this book was a retrospective
>>>>> presentation of his work. This was the text he gave to Denis Huisman,
>>>>> completed with a short presentation and a bibliography. It was
>>>>> decided
>>>>> to
>>>>> sign it 'Maurice Florence', which gave the obvious abbreviation
>>>>> 'M.F.'...
>>>>>
>>>>> According to further notes (in the French and English editions) only
>>>>> the
>>>>> first sentence of the published text was written by Francois Ewald -
>>>>> the
>>>>> rest was by 'M.F.'
>>>>>
>>>>> Since these notes were compiled by Francois Ewald and Daniel Defert,
>>>>> I
>>>>> take
>>>>> them to be as authoritative as one could wish for.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Timothy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Kevin Turner
>>>>> <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Foucault Listers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have read that the self title essay by Foucault, published under
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> pseudonym of Maurice Florence (EW2: 459-463), was the first of three
>>>>>> version
>>>>>> of what finally became the 'Introduction' to Vol. 2 of the "History
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> Sexuality:" the second being 'The Preface to the History of
>>>>>> Sexuality,
>>>>>> Volume Two' (EW1: 199-205); and the third being Chapter 1,
>>>>>> 'Modifications,'
>>>>>> of the actual 'Introduction' itself (UP: 3-13).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is, whilst I have read this, I have not come upon any
>>>>>> actual
>>>>>> evidence to support this claim – i.e. those who mention it cite no
>>>>>> references.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My question, then, is, firstly, are these text three version of the
>>>>>> same
>>>>>> introduction; and, secondly, where might I find evidence to support
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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!