9.23.2010

__________________ the open sea ...



_________________________________________________


The book I did wasn't about the history of philosophy, it's something
I wanted to do with him, with the idea I have of him and my
admiration for him. If there was any poetry in the book, one might
see it as what poets call a tombeau.


 I  differed from him only on very
minor things: what he called an apparatus, and what Felix and I called
arrangements, have different coordinates, because he was establishing
novel historical sequences, while we put more emphasis on geographical
elements, territoriality and movements of deterritorialization.



We were always rather keen on universal history, which he
detested. 


But being able to follow what he was doing provided me
with essential corroboration.


 He was often misunderstood, which
didn't get in his way but did worry him. 


People were afraid of him,
that's to say his mere existence was enough to stop idiots braying.


 Foucault
fulfilled the function of philosophy as defined by Nietzsche:
being bad for stupidity. 

Thinking, with him, is like diving down and
always bringing something back up to the surface. 


A thought that



folds this way and that, then suddenly bursts open like a spring. I
don't in fact think he was particularly influenced by Leibniz.




Although there's a remark in Leibniz that applies particularly well to
him: "I thought I'd reached port, but found myself thrown back onto
the open sea.


Thinkers like Foucault advance by lurching from one
crisis to another, there's something seismic about them.




_______________           ____________________________________________

 and as Corry Shores  always graciously does    so we too thank you 
 text excerpt of Deleuze (Negotiations)  and  Martin Joughin the  noble translator  of these words
from francais to  english
_________________________________________________________________________________