Miscellaneous tidbit but I once referenced "Maurice Florence" (earlier
version) to a friend of mine to define Foucault as a Kantian, in terms of
critical tradition. My friend (a fanatical Kantian), needless to say,
thought the piece was merely ironic and not meant to be taken seriously.
I never knew of the close relationship between the volume 2 introduction and
the Maurice Florence piece!
Thanks for holding this thread.
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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!
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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"
version) to a friend of mine to define Foucault as a Kantian, in terms of
critical tradition. My friend (a fanatical Kantian), needless to say,
thought the piece was merely ironic and not meant to be taken seriously.
I never knew of the close relationship between the volume 2 introduction and
the Maurice Florence piece!
Thanks for holding this thread.
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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!
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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"