[eDebate] in defense of the jon sharp video
Mon Jun 29 01:41:26 CDT 2009
pissboy refuses to withdraw his "elephant in the room" -- marx -- despite being shown that marx is not the elephant in the room.
your comments that sharp had not even mentioned marx, oh my gosh, in the first 16 minutes of his lecture were STUPID comments. i don't know why you broadcast them loud and clear as a complaint about sharp's lecture. "not mentioning in the first 16 minutes" rhetorically creates the impression that the lecture has underplayed THE major influence on foucault and might not be very good. i have no problem defending a well above average critique lecture against STUPID comments.
you distract to foucault's mentioning the proletariat and exploitation in a quotation. doesn't matter when you have claimed "marx = elephant in the room". given other more important influences claimed by foucault, your comment on the sharp video was STUPID and probably should be retracted. marx is the gerbil in the room that the doctor pulled out yo ass last night.
yes, i have used marx to leverage a foucault interpretation that would be problematic for proprietary critique evidence on planet debate and other places. apparently, my critique was fairly effective since at least some information there is no longer proprietary. but again, your comment on the sharp video was STUPID and probably should be retracted.
" we're right to detect nietzsche's historical method and catch hints of heidegger's concept of 'standing-reserve', but is there a more apt parallel than adorno's notion of our living in 'the administered world'?"
you're totally misrepresenting foucault who says without equivocation:
"Nietzsche and Heidegger together [however], that was the philosophical shock! But I never wrote anything on Heidegger, and I never wrote on Nietzsche except for one very short article; they are nevertheless the two authors that I have read most."
why are trying to diminish the impact of that statement? why slight this important death-bed clarification?
nietzsche's historical method and hints of heidegger's concept of 'standing-reserve" are STUPID ways of characterizing a "PHILOSOPHICAL SHOCK", of characterizing the "the two authors i have read the most".
in his last phase, because of lackeys like pissboy, foucault distanced himself from the panopticon and explored the practices of the self. the panopticon had been over-emphasized as an ideal of mechanistic, determinism creating the illusion of radical servitude on par with the leviathan. whereas foucault saw his protests as acts of defiance refusing to accept overarching super-structures as determinative, the academics globbed onto the picture of radical un-freedom.
living in the panopticon is mostly living in a world of abstractions -- a world of abstractions that have become so solidified that they seem real. living in a world of intellectual abstractions is a disembodied experience. it is difficult to theorize for people like sanchez who have come to love abstractions like the panopticon. foucault knew this from the start seeing the depravity of theoretical nietzsche interpretations.
regimentation of the body enhances the dominance of abstraction.
this should not be misread as a disavowal of the panopticon but its meaning as construed by pissboy as something "kafkesque". the openness of the study of disciplinary power to such interpretations required another theoretical port of entry. foucault goes back to ancient greece and the formation of the free subject through ascetism or self-restraint. the panopticon was deemed not the best place to start. the military division of space and time conjoined with the regimentation of the body never was final. since the renaissance, resistance in the form of acrobatics, dance, mime and the commedia dell'arte had proliferated in pockets throughout europe forever changing western art. becoming free ultimately can not be reduced to possessing juridical rights. this is the legacy of foucault that runs back through nietzsche to burckhardt. nietzsche's silent language of gesture picked up by heidegger is nothing abstract. it is no coincidence that many of these artistic groups had been criminalized since they were viewed as threats to the pious bodies of christians, the organized bodies of societies, and the lazy pissboy bodies of the academies. the emergence of disciplinary society includes a great amount of law against theaters not overtly mentioned by foucault in his histories but hinted at in his fundamental relationship to nietzsche and heidegger. foucault explains on his death-bed that belonging to this tradition allows one to not say the most important things.
marx was not much one for the life of the arts as a form of resistance to socio-economic coercion of the body. marx did outline the coercion of the workplace through surveillance and, for this, he was commended, but with regards to the 'how' of resistance marx was an abject failure. marx's theoretical limitations and lack of literary ability are symptoms. nietzche's literary mastery is a breath of fresh air after marx. adorno's theory is not a fix. marx believed in the demagogic channeling of resistance into mass movements of revolution to overthrow the state and the utopian workplace. foucault questioned the need to form political parties and the need for revolution. foucault never completely distanced himself from political protests but he did distance himself from the panopticon by starting elsewhere with --- how one makes one's own body oneself --. this last step opens the opportunity to un-learn the panoptic organization of the body. the panoptic organization of the body relies in part on a theoretical top-heavy existence exemplified by pissboy. how to make life a work of art? pissboy's abstract existence is not the answer.
at the end of the day, an understanding of the panopticon in theoretical terms is not necessary for a marcel marceau to defy the regimentation of his body but practicing in a tradition that recovers "lost knowledges" does allow marcel marceau to defy regimentation. at the end of the day, the theoretical explanation of the panopticon may be counterproductive. foucault was an artist from the beginning and realized that what was productive for himself may have proven unproductive for others less aesthetically inclined.
i'm not sure how much this tangent "defends sharp's video" but, unlike, sanchez i bet he can forge connections from this insight. mime and her sisters are no doubt some of the "lost knowledges" which secretly raised nietzsche's writing to unspoken heights and are implied by foucault's turn back to the practices of the self. debate as a communication activity should be interested in gradually integrating these "lost knowledges" as tools for defying physical regimentation in the academic world. studies of the cross-training of renaissance orators in theatrical disciplines like the commedia dell'arte have already been broached. debate is behind the curve. all the talk in nietzsche's the will to power about physiology and training are indirect hints picked up by foucault.
for me, connecting foucault's last phase to nietzsche and burckhardt's book on the renaissance has been fundamental in more fully grasping the political defiance involved in becoming a force of an artist. i believe firmly that nietzsche never saw hope in political resistance to the panopticon and foucault later converged with nietzsche on the point of intensive artistic training as the primary space of physical autonomy understood by the greeks and the renaissance as a culture but not so by the moderns.
this realization of mine in no way goes back on the necessity of forming linkages between theory and practice or critiques of apolitical foucauldians.
Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman