please note my new email address:
[log in to unmask]

looking forward to being in touch from a trouble-free email system.
Jane Mills



-----Original Message-----
From: Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]>
Date:     Tue, 29 May 2001 18:00:01 +0100
To: Recipients of FILM-PHILOSOPHY digests <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:  FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 28 May 2001 to 29 May 2001 (#2001-51)


> There are 5 messages totalling 234 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>   1. Foucault (for GM)
>   2. Foucault (for MV) (2)
>   3. Locke, Berkeley, Associationism, Kant, . . .
>   4. H Ebbinghaus and Utter Nonsense
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 29 May 2001 15:50:43 -0400
> From:    michael vocino <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Foucault (for GM)
>
> JMC:  I've found your postings fascinating and well worth the read.  I
> was following you--and in agreement--right up to this sentence:
> "As to relativism--what of it? If the
> world is the coming-forth of power and hence the place of power
> struggles, what then?"
> Could you explain this point a little more for me.  I don't understand
> these two sentences.  Thanks, m.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "JMC" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 11:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Foucault (for GM)
>
>
> > Interesting questions Gary. We could pursue these either in terms of
> Foucault or
> > in terms of Nietzsche or both--which would you like to do?
> >
> > Here is perhaps a start to answer some of your questions: If power
> produces
> > distinction, then such terms as ontology and agency already belong
> to the power
> > that produces them. Moreover, ontology--as explored by Nietzsche,
> Heidegger, and
> > Gadamer--is the making-present of power. I do not think that
> ontology ever gets
> > eliminated--for these philosophers, it gets historicized rather than
> Platonized.
> > What happens to the ontology of truth is a good question. The
> answer, I believe,
> > is that the havingness of truth belongs to the power that produces
> it. Let me
> > know if this interpretation makes sense to you.
> >
> > As to the political meaning of these statements from Foucault--that
> is what I
> > would like to explore.
> >
> > To further this discussion: I think the question regarding quietism
> pertinent,
> > and I would like to address this question by other means.
> >
> > Your question, "How does one avoid quietism, if all is power and
> truth is
> > totally bound up with power?", entangles two distinct issues:
> quietism and power
> > itself. As to power, Deleuze and Gutarri explore it in an
> interesting way--power
> > itself is, but it is not singular in any way that we know it other
> than by
> > definition. Your formulation, "if all is power and truth is totally
> bound up
> > with power," implies that truth and power are singular in being, but
> they are
> > not singular--they are multiplicitious. As to relativism--what of
> it? If the
> > world is the coming-forth of power and hence the place of power
> struggles, what
> > then?
> >
> > By the way, can you point me to a context/source for "Bhaskarian
> terms "?
> >
> > Solutions--how about a film like _Pay It Forward_ to address your
> questions
> > regarding power?
> >
> > JMC
> >
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Gary MacLennon asks,
> >
> > +++++++++
> >
> > If the above equates truth with power and it certainly seems to,
> then how
> > does one discriminate within power between power as agency and power
> as
> > exploitation and oppression? Or to put this in Bhaskarian terms what
> is the
> > effect of refusing to make a distinction between Power 1 (agency)
> and Power
> > 2 (domination & exploitation)?
> > If one says that this distinction is irrelevant then what does this
> mean
> > politically?  How does one avoid quietism, if all is power and truth
> is
> > totally bound up with power?
> >
> > As for truth, what does the "political question ... is truth itself"
> > actually mean in political terms?  Is this a rejection of the old
> belief
> > that to tell the truth about a state affairs, say the effect of USA
> > sanctions against Iraq, is in itself a emancipatory act? Is
> Foucault, when
> > he embraces Nietzsche, suggesting that to tell the truth about USA
> > barbarism is simply the exercise of one's will to power?
> >
> > Moreover what is the effect of refusing an ontological definition of
> > truth?  If truth is forever an epistemological matter then how does
> one
> > avoid relativism?
> >
> >
> > +++++++++
> >
> >
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 28 May 2001 16:21:07 -0500
> From:    JMC <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Foucault (for MV)
>
> Michael Vocino, you asked for an explanation of the following statement: "As to
> relativism--what of it? If the world is the coming-forth of power and hence the
> place of power struggles, what then?"
>
> Let me re-work this formulation then. GM asked about relativism. My  reply was,
> ""As to relativism--what of it?," but I could reformulate this reply to read,
> Yes, I think Nietzsche and Foucault are relativists. I also think that one's
> sense of power is relative to one's position, and I believe that Nietzsche
> articulates this idea excellently. One such formulation is his theory of
> resentment, which is, in many ways, the power of the slave over the master. I
> also think Foucault follows this path of analysis in his genealogies.
>
> Another way to understand power in relation to relativism is to look at _Pay It
> Forward_ and all the relational terms it maps. For Nietzsche--perhaps Foucault
> as well--, all people aspire to power, and power manifests itself in bullying,
> alcoholism, drug addiction, friendship, trust, gambling, theft, love, and hate.
> (When viewed with these terms in mind, one can more easily see how the will to
> power in Nietzsche is a reformulation of Emerson.) To change the power nexus is
> complicated as Deleuze and Gutarri and _Pay it Forward_ both show. What does it
> mean to change the world? Hence my question, "If the world is the coming-forth
> of power and hence the place of power struggles, what then?"
>
> MV, hope this explanation helps.
>
> JMC
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 29 May 2001 00:54:05 -0500
> From:    JMC <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Locke, Berkeley, Associationism, Kant, . . .
>
> Locke:
>
>  <A HREF="http://www.rc.umd.edu/cstahmer/cogsci/locke.html" TARGET="_new"><FONT COLOR="BLUE">http://www.rc.umd.edu/cstahmer/cogsci/locke.html</FONT></A>
>
> Berkeley:
>
>  <A HREF="http://www.rc.umd.edu/cstahmer/cogsci/berkeley.html" TARGET="_new"><FONT COLOR="BLUE">http://www.rc.umd.edu/cstahmer/cogsci/berkeley.html</FONT></A>
>
> Associationism:
>
>  <A HREF="http://www.xrefer.com/entry/551342" TARGET="_new"><FONT COLOR="BLUE">http://www.xrefer.com/entry/551342</FONT></A>
>
> Kant:
>
>  <A HREF="http://www.csudh.edu/phenom_studies/western/lect_9.html" TARGET="_new"><FONT COLOR="BLUE">http://www.csudh.edu/phenom_studies/western/lect_9.html</FONT></A>
>
> Locke and Kant:
>
>  <A HREF="http://www.rdg.ac.uk/AcaDepts/ld/Philos/alice/teaching/locke-kant/" TARGET="_new"><FONT COLOR="BLUE">http://www.rdg.ac.uk/AcaDepts/ld/Philos/alice/teaching/locke-kant/</FONT></A>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 29 May 2001 01:48:10 -0500
> From:    JMC <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: H Ebbinghaus and Utter Nonsense
>
> Ebbinghaus:
>
>  <A HREF="http://educ.southern.edu/tour/who/pioneers/ebbinghaus.html" TARGET="_new"><FONT COLOR="BLUE">http://educ.southern.edu/tour/who/pioneers/ebbinghaus.html</FONT></A>
>
>
> Associationism and Utter Nonsense:
>
>  <A HREF="http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/pam94.htm" TARGET="_new"><FONT COLOR="BLUE">http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/pam94.htm</FONT></A>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 29 May 2001 09:34:43 +0100
> From:    Sukhbir Garewal <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Foucault (for MV)
>
> JMC writes
>
> "I think Nietzsche and Foucault are relativists. I also think that one's
> sense of power is relative to one's position, and I believe that Nietzsche
> articulates this idea excellently. One such formulation is his theory of
> resentment, which is, in many ways, the power of the slave over the master.
> I also think Foucault follows this path of analysis in his genealogies."
>
> Three things: a) "Both Nietzsche and Foucault are relativists" b) More of a
> home-truth: "One's sense of power is relative to one's position". (Am I
> impressed man!)c) 'Nietzschean theory of resentment is in many ways the
> power of the slave over the master' (Precise reference please!)
>
> JMC further proposes:
>
> Many things:
> a) a way to understand power in relation to relativism - which keeps
> non-moving like a train to nowhere. The argument is specious.
> b) Hometruth 2: "For Nietzsche... all people aspire to power" - This
> c) The last bit - about 'changing the power nexus' is a complete
> 'breakdown'and I don't think even the real Deleuze and Guattari would be
> very amused with such linguistic "non-formations".
>
> JMC's explanations obviously do not help in "a field of entangled and
> confused parchments, on documents that have been scratched over and recopied
> many times".
>
> Sukhbir Garewal
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  <A HREF="http://www.hotmail.com." TARGET="_new"><FONT COLOR="BLUE">http://www.hotmail.com.</FONT></A>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 28 May 2001 to 29 May 2001 (#2001-51)
> *********************************************************************
>
>

--


Associate Senior Research Fellow
Australian Film, Television & Radio School

PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS:

[log in to unmask]


_______________________________________________
Get your free email from http://www.mail.com