Any bad aphorisms from my part:
Jean has search and resolved the genetic code of Marxism and other post
Marxism, as semiotic anthropologic machine, something as an anthropological
disposition of human succession: certainly yes (academic Fr has not still
understand it but that's great).
BUT: so what of creation?
The message being: whatever you know the code you do not hold the resolution
of the enigma, it is an irreducible secret of the things.
You can only do it - do it as well as possible following your ideas: as
proper things theirselves
All stays strange and radical otherness at the world. As radical sadness of
the existential divide.
Here begins the creation: create the critical world as you want. Do not take
care of it, whatever you want it will follow as a radical evil.
How avoid the question of the radical evil: do not confuse the art and
philosophical creation with the social reality, they are otherness each one
to each one. But take care of you as radical evil yourself.
Create critical entropy that is only what you can hope for the best but the
risk of the worst.
It is really the question of emergent creation after all resolution, at
Baudrillard's and liberate the risk at its place.
All that reflects the representation is dead. Life exceeds the
representation. Genetic code is a representation (that have still made long
fire in Biology which yet overpass the question of the genetic specificity
from the question of active environment)
More if you accord the genetic disposition to credit the concept of destiny
(not being fate) at Baudrillard's, at this moment you turn into
misinterpretation what he tells on destiny and can turn it into fascism. It
is exactly the fatal error which does not stop about him.
exactly the struggle against the academic power of post structuralism in all
its statements in FR of the seventies: university, scientific publishing,
literature and so on (at the moment Foucault as academic representative
power -what does not presuppose of the quality of his personal works and not
more of his late activism - late regarding such as Baudrillard's or
Lyotard's who had begun very more soon:)))
Reaching Gallimard, Foucault (fine and nice man out of his power): never the
translation of Hölderlin ordered by Gallimard to jean just before could be
out under the reign of Foucault on Gallimard. But more there was a stuff to
hide Canetti's thought. When F came Masses et puissance was still published.
There were another projects: but F. accepted only Canetti's auto-biographic
texts to be translated. Jean was vigilant to German thought, so he left
Gallimard and wrote "Oublier Foucault".
At the end of his life F had accorded an interview to a newspaper on
literature which has disappeared the title was "Les nouvelles littéraires"
allowed to publish it but largely after his death, not before: that was
exactly the posthumous article to answer jean and apologize to him (without
naming him) telling : "of course I was a mandarin, as power exercising the
domination of post structuralism in the publishing of knowledge, and it will
be my very regret to have choose the academic power in matter of collective
thought to appear..." BUT the "widows" have made disappear this testimony;-)
MORE they have edified a misinformation from extracting sentences
translation the question of Godist and homosexuality about AID, out of their
environment in the books, able to tell he was an homophobe and throw a
cabala against him: in real cause Foucault!!
Imagine coming from Baudrillard that he could say (but reporting the common
view from believing ideology) that AID is the revenge of God!!! IMPOSSIBLE
AS HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD !!! But they have written it till the last
days in the review "Tetu":::
And I see that the following cortege is not finished on this question while
the interview has purely disappeared:) in the actual information of the
death of Baudrillard in FR.
Never more Canetti's thought had been published in FR it was "irreparable".
The opportunity was over, closed. We'll probably have never this texts
translated in FR (the were not of jean's contract but other translators).
All which concerns German post war philosophy but Heidegger would be able to
be published in FR thanks F.
And now what of the proper content of Oublier Foucault?
At the moment he was himself in a fight from materialism to structuralism,
more victim himself of the segregation of his free thinking. Can you imagine
that he would have written a text of opinion about the situation?
No, because he is Baudrillard what means activist, a fighter, struggling? So
wh at he could made but the radical critics of Foucault as thought more post
structuralism as school, just to show how they were contestable by another
analysis so not universal truth, but more, very relative local truth: so it
gave "Oublier Foucault" radically.
What is Baudrillard cannot supporting any uniformity nor power. What he
really hoped was: autonomy of the thought as proper system, and social
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and