really enjoyed your post Jeffrey
thanks
Tony O'Brien
New Zealand
________________________________________
From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Jeffrey Tallane [linactuel@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2011 11:57 p.m.
To: Mailing-list
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault-Habermas Debate
Hello Machiel,
I think Foucault's parrhesia is totaly different from the kantian
conception of truth as it is completely immanent to life and the various
power relations in which it takes place (enkrateia, government of the self
and the others) while Kant's conception of truth is epistemological,
related to a decorporated subject, displacing the problem of truth to the
cartesian problem of "certainty" that accompany a judgement and its
conditions of validity.
On contrary, it seems to me that on "truth", Habermas stayed kantian in the
core, even if he introduced intersubjectivity in the kantian monologue so
that the problem of judgement moved from Kant's internal debate betwen the
faculties of the soul to the public debate between different subjects
following some basic ethical discussion rules to devine objectivity and
normativity. So, to make it (maybe too) simple: Habermas's problem is how
to found objectivity and normativity on intersubjectivity. His main problem
is still: how can different subject with different values share the same
norms and the same world?
At the other side, Foucault's parrhesia tries to break it's own filiation
with Kant's traditional epistemological and moral problem by (re)introduing
parrhesia and its cynical conceptual caracter. When one traduces parrhesia
by "truth-telling", whe should take care that "truth" has a completely
different meaning from the same word in sentences like "it is true that I
should'nt have done that", "the truth is that 1+1=2", "the truth is that
there is snow in the garden" or in "it is true that murder is forbidden",
and so on.
In parrhesiastic games, and all the more reason in its cynical form, truth
is a practice involving one's whole form of existence, including forms of
relations to the others. It works in a completely different way that
doesn't fit the kantian or habermassian problems. It moves the ptoblem from
intersubjectivity to the various modes of relation where subjects create
themselve (éthopoiesis). It has nothing to do with the problem of
objectivity or normativity. Foucault's problem, to make it also too simple,
is not "how can different subjects share the same values?" but, in contrary
"how can interactions result in different subjects with different values
behind the veil of sameness?", "how do subject constitute themself in
regard of truth, norms and laws?"
So, concerning the concept of "subject" in Foucault and Habermas, I have
difficulties to understand where they would overlap, as in Foucault there
is no substantial subject prior to interaction, exercises, and trainings...
He distinguish three kinds of subjects: the subject of knowledge, the
subject of norms and the ethical subject. So, the "return of the subject"
(to which Habermas referred to in his book on the Discourse of modernity)
is an "ethical subject" and not an episthemical subject nor a normative.
This ethical subject is linked to the concept of "éthopoiesis", "enkratei"
and can't be reduced to the epistemological difference between
subject/object or the normative subject. I couldn't recomment enough to
read the introduction and the first chapter of *The History of Sexuality
Vol. 2: The Use of Pleasure*.
Within the problem of the ethical subject, parrhesia makes it more complex
as it involves strategical relations to others as a mean for this kind of
art of the self. The type of relation that I entertain with the others and
the way I use this as a strategic mean to act on the others, can be part of
the contruction of my ethical subject as different to the others.
The cynical caracter is problematic as it refuses the public consensus, the
ethical discussion, hence it makes any habermassian universalism
impossible. It shows that moral norms, public objectivity and truth enacted
on the agora are based on a more silent exclusion between citizens and "the
others".
But in the antiquity, cynics subverted their exclusion to make it a mean to
struggle while our modernity seems to be immunicized against difference. By
reclaiming the crown, cynics showed that citizens were only "the others of
the others", that they didn't fit what they were supposed to be. So,
reintroducing the cynical conceptual caracter in the habermasian comedy
becomes really risky, as it monstrate that the supposed difference between
subjects end their values within the public space is a fake and already
abolished by consensus!
In my oppinion, the way philosophers use Kant as as a universal fly-trap is
a strategy to suppress philosophical problems. If everyone is kantien there
is no real problem! That's why I think that there has never been a real
Habermas-Foucault historical nor philosophical debate. The historical one
never took place and the philosophical one was corrupted by the
presupposition of its own possibility, hence by the fact that Foucault was,
in some way, habermasian. That's also Habermas's point of viw in The
philosophical discourse of modernity when it is suggested in the last
chapter that if Foucault's theory(!) is pushed foward, it dialectically
result in Habermas. So, in my own opinion, the debate has still to be
enacted...
Best,
Jeffrey
2011/11/1 Karskens, M.L.J. (Machiel) <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Hello Jeffrey,
>
> Debates between Foucault defenders and Habermas defenders has been staged
> already several times.
>
> I agree with you, that the point of the early debate was Habermas' Kantian
> transcendentAL position defending a general Rationality and the
> (transcendental) Subject, as against Foucault's position defending several
> rationalities and different subject positions.
>
> That debate is still going on, but it can be restaged now - since the full
> edition of Foucaults lectures on the Hermeneutics of the Subject, the
> Courage of Truth, and of the Lectures on the Will to Knowledge (of 1970-1)
> - as a debate between Communicative Action and the Practice of Telling the
> Truth (Parrhèssia).
> Then, I guess, both positions are going to overlap each other, because
> both make use of the same positive notion of Truth, which is in my
> opinion the Kantian notion of Truth. Moreover, both make use of the same
> notion of subject, being a human actor in a Truth game who must apply the
> Truth to her/himself.
>
>
> yours
> machiel karskens
>
>
> ----- "Jeffrey Tallane" <linactuel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > From: "Jeffrey Tallane" <linactuel@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 9:24:10 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault-Habermas Debate
> >
> > Hello, I agree that there was no Habermas-Foucault debate. Hence, it
> > has
> > still to be staged... The difficulty is that Habermas is a systematic
> > thinker who adopt a transcendant perspective on things while
> > Foucault's
> > perspective is unsystematic and completely rejects transcendance.
> > That's
> > why Habermas completely fails to understand Foucault in his book
> > titled The
> > philosophical discourse on modernity.
> >
> > However, I think the last courses on governmentality and parrhesia at
> > Le
> > College de France (1976-1984) are both possible responses to the
> > critics
> > adressed by Jurgen Abermas after Foucault's death. For instance in "Il
> > faut
> > défendre la société" Foucault shows a history of his own practice in
> > french
> > and english historiographic practices during the XVII and XVIII th
> > centuries: constructing history as a warfield and truth as engaged in
> > the
> > battle. Also, in the introduction of the second book of the History
> > of
> > sexuality, Foucault explains the specificity of his concept of
> > ethical
> > subject, that has nothing to do with the classical substantial subject
> > nor
> > with the hegelian subject-object opposition. Last but not least, the
> > courses on parrhesia and cynical truth-telling are important as
> > Habermas
> > completely ignores them, for sake, as it would ruin his argument...
> >
> > Best,
> > Jeffrey
> >
> > 2011/10/2 Burak Kose <burakkose@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > > Foucault Contra Habermas: Recasting the Debate between Genealogy
> > and
> > > Critical Theory (ed. by Samantha Ashenden and David Owen)
> > > Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate (ed. by
> > Michael
> > > Kelly)
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Guillermo Vega
> > <gui_vega@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think that there is not a real debate between Habermas and
> > Foucault.
> > > > Anyway, you can find the central area of conflict in "The
> > Philosophical
> > > > Discourse of Modernity".
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Guillermo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2011/9/28 David McInerney <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > > I have to agree with this!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 28/09/2011, at 8:52 PM, ari wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > if you can't do that best not even try reading the stuff!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:28:23 +0530, Amitranjan Basu wrote:
> > > > > >> no one is providing the full citation so that i can search!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 28 September 2011 16:17, David McInerney
> > <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> I seem to remember that the little book 'Remarks on Marx' -
> > later
> > > > > >>> published
> > > > > >>> in a different translation - had a lot in it on the
> > critical
> > > > > >>> theorists
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On 28/09/2011, at 7:46 PM, Karskens, M.L.J. (Machiel)
> > wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> The best text of Foucault is the second part of his article
> > The
> > > > > >>> Subject
> > > > > >>> and Power. There, he explicitly discusses his theory of
> > > > > >>> power/politics as
> > > > > >>> being different from Habermas'theory of communication.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> yours
> > > > > >>>> machiel karskens
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Reno" <renomich@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > >>>>> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 8:43:26 PM
> > > > > >>>>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault-Habermas Debate
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> critique and power, subtitled, recasting the
> > Foucault-Habermas
> > > > > >>> debate,
> > > > > >>>>> has many of the primary texts
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On 9/27/2011 10:35 AM, ari wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>> axel honneth 'critique of power' is a classic on this.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:30:24 +0100, Tee Dub wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> Dear all,
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> I am in my fourth year at the University of Edinburgh
> > and have
> > > > > >>>>>>> decided to do my dissertation on Foucault and in
> > particular the
> > > > > >>>>>>> ‘debate’ that he had with Habermas over the term
> > ‘power’. I am
> > > > > >>> in
> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>> very early stages of the project and am in need of some
> > advice.
> > > > > >>>>> Would
> > > > > >>>>>>> anyone be able to tell me what the central area of
> > conflict
> > > > > >>> between
> > > > > >>>>>>> the two was and know where Foucault best outlines his
> > opinion
> > > > > >>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>> power
> > > > > >>>>>>> and where Habermas outlines his? Also are there any
> > secondary
> > > > > >>>>> sources
> > > > > >>>>>>> that I may find useful?
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Any help is much appreciated.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Terrence
> > > > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >>>>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >>>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Foucault-L mailing list
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Foucault-L mailing list
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Foucault-L mailing list
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Foucault-L mailing list
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
thanks
Tony O'Brien
New Zealand
________________________________________
From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Jeffrey Tallane [linactuel@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2011 11:57 p.m.
To: Mailing-list
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault-Habermas Debate
Hello Machiel,
I think Foucault's parrhesia is totaly different from the kantian
conception of truth as it is completely immanent to life and the various
power relations in which it takes place (enkrateia, government of the self
and the others) while Kant's conception of truth is epistemological,
related to a decorporated subject, displacing the problem of truth to the
cartesian problem of "certainty" that accompany a judgement and its
conditions of validity.
On contrary, it seems to me that on "truth", Habermas stayed kantian in the
core, even if he introduced intersubjectivity in the kantian monologue so
that the problem of judgement moved from Kant's internal debate betwen the
faculties of the soul to the public debate between different subjects
following some basic ethical discussion rules to devine objectivity and
normativity. So, to make it (maybe too) simple: Habermas's problem is how
to found objectivity and normativity on intersubjectivity. His main problem
is still: how can different subject with different values share the same
norms and the same world?
At the other side, Foucault's parrhesia tries to break it's own filiation
with Kant's traditional epistemological and moral problem by (re)introduing
parrhesia and its cynical conceptual caracter. When one traduces parrhesia
by "truth-telling", whe should take care that "truth" has a completely
different meaning from the same word in sentences like "it is true that I
should'nt have done that", "the truth is that 1+1=2", "the truth is that
there is snow in the garden" or in "it is true that murder is forbidden",
and so on.
In parrhesiastic games, and all the more reason in its cynical form, truth
is a practice involving one's whole form of existence, including forms of
relations to the others. It works in a completely different way that
doesn't fit the kantian or habermassian problems. It moves the ptoblem from
intersubjectivity to the various modes of relation where subjects create
themselve (éthopoiesis). It has nothing to do with the problem of
objectivity or normativity. Foucault's problem, to make it also too simple,
is not "how can different subjects share the same values?" but, in contrary
"how can interactions result in different subjects with different values
behind the veil of sameness?", "how do subject constitute themself in
regard of truth, norms and laws?"
So, concerning the concept of "subject" in Foucault and Habermas, I have
difficulties to understand where they would overlap, as in Foucault there
is no substantial subject prior to interaction, exercises, and trainings...
He distinguish three kinds of subjects: the subject of knowledge, the
subject of norms and the ethical subject. So, the "return of the subject"
(to which Habermas referred to in his book on the Discourse of modernity)
is an "ethical subject" and not an episthemical subject nor a normative.
This ethical subject is linked to the concept of "éthopoiesis", "enkratei"
and can't be reduced to the epistemological difference between
subject/object or the normative subject. I couldn't recomment enough to
read the introduction and the first chapter of *The History of Sexuality
Vol. 2: The Use of Pleasure*.
Within the problem of the ethical subject, parrhesia makes it more complex
as it involves strategical relations to others as a mean for this kind of
art of the self. The type of relation that I entertain with the others and
the way I use this as a strategic mean to act on the others, can be part of
the contruction of my ethical subject as different to the others.
The cynical caracter is problematic as it refuses the public consensus, the
ethical discussion, hence it makes any habermassian universalism
impossible. It shows that moral norms, public objectivity and truth enacted
on the agora are based on a more silent exclusion between citizens and "the
others".
But in the antiquity, cynics subverted their exclusion to make it a mean to
struggle while our modernity seems to be immunicized against difference. By
reclaiming the crown, cynics showed that citizens were only "the others of
the others", that they didn't fit what they were supposed to be. So,
reintroducing the cynical conceptual caracter in the habermasian comedy
becomes really risky, as it monstrate that the supposed difference between
subjects end their values within the public space is a fake and already
abolished by consensus!
In my oppinion, the way philosophers use Kant as as a universal fly-trap is
a strategy to suppress philosophical problems. If everyone is kantien there
is no real problem! That's why I think that there has never been a real
Habermas-Foucault historical nor philosophical debate. The historical one
never took place and the philosophical one was corrupted by the
presupposition of its own possibility, hence by the fact that Foucault was,
in some way, habermasian. That's also Habermas's point of viw in The
philosophical discourse of modernity when it is suggested in the last
chapter that if Foucault's theory(!) is pushed foward, it dialectically
result in Habermas. So, in my own opinion, the debate has still to be
enacted...
Best,
Jeffrey
2011/11/1 Karskens, M.L.J. (Machiel) <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Hello Jeffrey,
>
> Debates between Foucault defenders and Habermas defenders has been staged
> already several times.
>
> I agree with you, that the point of the early debate was Habermas' Kantian
> transcendentAL position defending a general Rationality and the
> (transcendental) Subject, as against Foucault's position defending several
> rationalities and different subject positions.
>
> That debate is still going on, but it can be restaged now - since the full
> edition of Foucaults lectures on the Hermeneutics of the Subject, the
> Courage of Truth, and of the Lectures on the Will to Knowledge (of 1970-1)
> - as a debate between Communicative Action and the Practice of Telling the
> Truth (Parrhèssia).
> Then, I guess, both positions are going to overlap each other, because
> both make use of the same positive notion of Truth, which is in my
> opinion the Kantian notion of Truth. Moreover, both make use of the same
> notion of subject, being a human actor in a Truth game who must apply the
> Truth to her/himself.
>
>
> yours
> machiel karskens
>
>
> ----- "Jeffrey Tallane" <linactuel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > From: "Jeffrey Tallane" <linactuel@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 9:24:10 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault-Habermas Debate
> >
> > Hello, I agree that there was no Habermas-Foucault debate. Hence, it
> > has
> > still to be staged... The difficulty is that Habermas is a systematic
> > thinker who adopt a transcendant perspective on things while
> > Foucault's
> > perspective is unsystematic and completely rejects transcendance.
> > That's
> > why Habermas completely fails to understand Foucault in his book
> > titled The
> > philosophical discourse on modernity.
> >
> > However, I think the last courses on governmentality and parrhesia at
> > Le
> > College de France (1976-1984) are both possible responses to the
> > critics
> > adressed by Jurgen Abermas after Foucault's death. For instance in "Il
> > faut
> > défendre la société" Foucault shows a history of his own practice in
> > french
> > and english historiographic practices during the XVII and XVIII th
> > centuries: constructing history as a warfield and truth as engaged in
> > the
> > battle. Also, in the introduction of the second book of the History
> > of
> > sexuality, Foucault explains the specificity of his concept of
> > ethical
> > subject, that has nothing to do with the classical substantial subject
> > nor
> > with the hegelian subject-object opposition. Last but not least, the
> > courses on parrhesia and cynical truth-telling are important as
> > Habermas
> > completely ignores them, for sake, as it would ruin his argument...
> >
> > Best,
> > Jeffrey
> >
> > 2011/10/2 Burak Kose <burakkose@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > > Foucault Contra Habermas: Recasting the Debate between Genealogy
> > and
> > > Critical Theory (ed. by Samantha Ashenden and David Owen)
> > > Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate (ed. by
> > Michael
> > > Kelly)
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Guillermo Vega
> > <gui_vega@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think that there is not a real debate between Habermas and
> > Foucault.
> > > > Anyway, you can find the central area of conflict in "The
> > Philosophical
> > > > Discourse of Modernity".
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Guillermo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2011/9/28 David McInerney <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > > I have to agree with this!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 28/09/2011, at 8:52 PM, ari wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > if you can't do that best not even try reading the stuff!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:28:23 +0530, Amitranjan Basu wrote:
> > > > > >> no one is providing the full citation so that i can search!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 28 September 2011 16:17, David McInerney
> > <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> I seem to remember that the little book 'Remarks on Marx' -
> > later
> > > > > >>> published
> > > > > >>> in a different translation - had a lot in it on the
> > critical
> > > > > >>> theorists
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On 28/09/2011, at 7:46 PM, Karskens, M.L.J. (Machiel)
> > wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> The best text of Foucault is the second part of his article
> > The
> > > > > >>> Subject
> > > > > >>> and Power. There, he explicitly discusses his theory of
> > > > > >>> power/politics as
> > > > > >>> being different from Habermas'theory of communication.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> yours
> > > > > >>>> machiel karskens
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Reno" <renomich@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > >>>>> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 8:43:26 PM
> > > > > >>>>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault-Habermas Debate
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> critique and power, subtitled, recasting the
> > Foucault-Habermas
> > > > > >>> debate,
> > > > > >>>>> has many of the primary texts
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On 9/27/2011 10:35 AM, ari wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>> axel honneth 'critique of power' is a classic on this.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:30:24 +0100, Tee Dub wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> Dear all,
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> I am in my fourth year at the University of Edinburgh
> > and have
> > > > > >>>>>>> decided to do my dissertation on Foucault and in
> > particular the
> > > > > >>>>>>> ‘debate’ that he had with Habermas over the term
> > ‘power’. I am
> > > > > >>> in
> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>> very early stages of the project and am in need of some
> > advice.
> > > > > >>>>> Would
> > > > > >>>>>>> anyone be able to tell me what the central area of
> > conflict
> > > > > >>> between
> > > > > >>>>>>> the two was and know where Foucault best outlines his
> > opinion
> > > > > >>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>> power
> > > > > >>>>>>> and where Habermas outlines his? Also are there any
> > secondary
> > > > > >>>>> sources
> > > > > >>>>>>> that I may find useful?
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Any help is much appreciated.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Terrence
> > > > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >>>>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >>>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Foucault-L mailing list
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Foucault-L mailing list
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Foucault-L mailing list
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Foucault-L mailing list
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list