1 - Can we map Foucault's discussion of avowal in Oedipus Rex to the four-part analysis of speech acts of avowal from the inaugural lecture (pp. 15-17)?
2a - Does the slave have to avow and is this inconsistent with MF's earlier description of avowal as necessarily free?
2b - Does the obligation on the slave to avow come from outside the subject or within the subject
3 - With respect to Foucault's categories (or are these concepts?), do the terms "mani9festiation of truth," "production of truth," "alethurgy," "veridiction" all map to one another?
4 - Corrrespondence between the avowal by the other and my own recognition.
5 - Why is art a representation of social practice in these two lectures? What is the relationship between art and social practice? Why isn't art a social practice? See p. 58, 81 for the language of "representation".
6 - Question of the relationship between reconignition and excess. On p.81 Foucault writes that "Oedipus was necessary for the truth to appear. He was necessary for the creation of this well-regulated form of the judicial machine that is capable of producing the truth. But he was eliminated, as a kind of 'excess', now, by the very judicial machine he brought forth". I wonder here what is this excess and in what ways can it be characterized? Is it the result of a recognition that can never be fully completed?
Summary of discussion by the group.
See notes on table below, which we began during this session.
MF offering an analysis of avowal as one possible mode of veridiction (p. 19).
No comments:
Post a Comment