Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 09:23:43 -0400
From: Reg Lilly <rlilly-AT-scott.skidmore.edu>
Subject: Re: the golden calf


I hardly want to sacralize Foucault.  For me, his philosophical weaknesses and
failures are more interesting that the stuff that can be taken up like a took
kit and applied ad libitum.  Nevertheless, I find 'philopsychography' -- whether
it is directed at Foucault, Nietzsche, Quine, Russel, Heidegger or whomever to
be a sensationalistic genre that unfortunately occludes more than it reveals. 
Having said that I'll say again that Miller's books is the best of the genre.
Reg Lilly

jon roffe wrote:
> 
> Hi all
> 
> I must say I've always been somewhat bewildered by remarks such as Reg
> Lily's (re Miller's "Passion of M.Foucault").  There certainly seems to
> be a groundswell of 'PR for Foucault' stuff around lately, as if
> Foucault's status as a deity itself(!) was being degraded by Miller, and
> others like him.
> 
> It seems to me that one of the advantages of the notion of 'specific
> intellectual' is that it has potential to avoid the religious fervour
> that seems to spring up around prominent intellectual figures.  My
> impression from his work (eg. the interview "The Masked Philosopher"),
> is that Foucault is not into this kind of sacramentalisation.
> Miller records a conversation Foucault had towards the end of his death
> with an undergraduate, and among his final words to him were, "If I die,
> don't cry for me" - so, instead, we should throw money at the foot of
> his statue?!
> 
> I'm throwing my money in with Doug Henwood.
> 
> Jon
> 
> P.S. May I add my thanks, John R. - great to read some interesting
> stuff.
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com