Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:00:05 -0500
From: Sheila LaFountain <slafoun-AT-emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Screed On F and L&M


Daniel F. Vukovich wrote:
> 
> At 04:23 PM 11/17/98 +0000, you wrote:

> I think the question of Foucault's ethics or ethos -- and how this might be
> related to his *insistence* on the non-discursive dimension of reality --
> is a great question and thread.  I like Alex's and amd's reading of this,
> to boot.  It is crucial to see this -- i.e., the non-discursive dimension
> -- in Foucault, and as Alex noted, the AofK itself makes this clear (e.g.,
> p. 162).  (Note too, that whoever says "non-discursive" says "material":
> the former simply transcodes the latter. It is not "dialectical
> materialism" by any means, but has to come from somewhere: I pick
> Althusser/Marx.)  Why is this important?  L&M say it is not (HSS, p107).
> I would say it is, since it seems to imply -- or to evidence in practice,
> at any rate -- a certain social ontology.  Not Heidegger, but Marx, Weber,
> et al.  And a certain social, "left" ethos.
> At any rate, I think the committment to the non-discursive is as much an
> ethical and political one, as it is epistemological.  But why is it
> "transcendental"?  And other thoughts?

Wild speculation....   because it transcends, exceeds, refuses to yield
completely to discourse? 
s