Now that the dust has settled...was he right?
>Mr.Foucault! Stop molesting young Tunisian boys!!!
>>23613733Discipline and Punish, and the 1st book of The History of Sexuality are great. It’s the only books I’ve read of his though
>>23613773Why are they great
>>23613778They made me think deeper about sexuality and punishment, and how they are used and evolved. I agreed with a lot of what Foucault put forth but it’s probably been like 5 years or so since I read him. His panopticon I thought was a very striking observation
>>23613786Did you actually read the books or did you just skim their Wikipedia pages?
>>23613733Useful frames of analysis yielding valid description of the world. Questionable praxis. Like most leftist intellectuals, they correctly describe things, but those things are just normal things which is why they are looked at like they’re crazy. And because they imply a lot of their descriptions are bad when they’re not, because again, they’re just normal things.
>>23613791Read the books
>>23613733Hadot was right about Foucault's philosophy being dangerous and leading to a kind of dandyism that probably contributed to his own death from AIDS. Foucault was right about a lot of things but his lack of any kind of substantive ethical philosophy is why so many vitriolic grad students latch onto his writings as a justification for extreme relativism and hedonism. I don't think this was Foucault's real intentions, he stayed silent on practical issues because he didn't see himself as good enough to recommend solutions to our problems. Nietzscheanism is a failure and not sustainable in the 21st century. Want to practice an aesthetic of existence where you create your own self through resistence to all rules and power? You'll just end up like /b/ or worse /pol/ and other shitholes or die of AIDS like Foucualt did because he thought "fuck all those doctors telling people not to sleep around I'm gonna be a rebel and resist their normative expectations to live my life as a work of art." If its any reassurance to all the retarded rightoids out there, Foucault's theories can help build a more communitarian and even conservative (genuinely) approach to ethics. e.g. treating Christian or Buddhist rituals as a means of caring for the self and fashioning yourself as a pious or enlightened subject which is what he was working on before he croaked due to fag related illnesses.>>23613786Foucault's panopticon model is outdated, In Foucault's disciplinary society, people are only watched in insitutions like schools and prisons. Today, surveillence is everywhere and everyone walks around with a smartphone which collects everything from location data to their heart rate. In a panopticon, the prisoners are aware they are being watched and change their behavior. Today, nobody gives a fuck. Seriously, go tell someone about the Snowden leaks and they just don't care. They think you're a tinfoil hat schizo or (when you show them the evidence) turn around and say they have nothing to hide and don't care if the NSA spys on them. People are just bots now. Deleuze predicted all of this.
>>23613856If I’m remembering correctly his panopticon affected wider society outside of just prisons and schools. Or maybe I just related it to current times like you said. Either was it’s ubiquitous and thus I think it’s still relevant. Very few people don’t have to worry about being watched
>>23613871Panoptic institutions haven't gone away, surveillence has just expanded and now people buy into it e.g. people going out of their way to diagnose themselves with diseases or the LGBTQIA++XYZ crowd inventing labels and tagging themselves because they've been psyopped into thinking its good. Panopticism does effect wider society outside of prisons and schools, but said prisons and schools are conditioning centers where behavior is drilled into people through repetition and surveillence. When they go out into the wider world, there's less control over them and they have more freedom. Sure, they are more or less conditioned but they are free from being watched and can do what they want. Today there is no escape. Surveillence is everywhere and its normal. You won't find dirty fringe shitholes where subcultures develop. The explosion of hardcore punk, Islamic jihadism, creepy perverts practicing sex dungeon rituals, anonymous bulletin boards etc. won't happen today because everything, everywhere, everyone is being watched and the internet conditions us to think stuff via algorithms and content spoon feeding.
>>23613856>Foucault was right about a lot of thingsLike what?
>>23613991getting aids
>>23613903I think we are on the same page then. I read Foucault a while ago and that part has been etched in my brain since because of the reality of it. It goes beyond just surveillance though, at least in a one sided way and it’s a very tit for tat type of conditioning. The policeman rules the streets but he too is watched by the public he is policing lest he get out of pocket. Even people with immense power are closely watch. Everyone is watching politicians and celebrities for missteps. I should really reread D&P. The regicide execution in the beginning was a hell of a start off point. I think a lot of Foucault has been proven right in regards to power and how discipline and sex play their part to the point it doesn’t seem a revelation anymore but it’s still interesting to see the nitty gritty. Have you read any of his work on aesthetics?
>>23613733No. Foucault was a terrible writer who often completely misinterpreted the ideas he was supposedly responding to. I think part of what makes him so egregious is that there is no epistemic justification for anything he writes. He makes broad sweeping claims, like denying selfhood, never gives any meaningful justification beyond asserting that we are just conduits for power down at every level, then builds a complex web of self-referential pseudo-intellectualism complete with obfuscatory terminology invented to appeal to egotistical university students who wanted nothing more than to prove to their parents they were enlightened new-age academics.In every debate he ever entered he was publicly humiliated, but retained his status by constantly shifting his expertise, claiming at times to be a historian, then a sociologist, and then a philosopher. Ultimately he was atrocious in all three disciplines. The only reason he's so prevalent in wacky post-modern garbage is because every legitimately creative and innovative social philosophy student left the universities since the basis of their theories was that philosophy was elitist and ultimately pointless. The only people who were left were middling intelligence bureaucratic types who love nothing more than following instructions and sitting in an intellectual safety net where everyone has the same lack of ambition. Foucault did nothing more than ruin a good sixty years of academia, giving people like Judith Butler, Saba Mahmood, and Edward Said a conceptual framework to disguise their intellectual bankruptcy.
>>23613733>was he right?Moral virtue is impossible.Diké is impossible.Epistemological correctness is impossible.Free will is impossible.THERE IS ONLY POWER.So yeah. Also demand payment in hashish, drink the orange juice, wipe Chomsky off the map.I find D&G more useful for critiquing leninism in practice though.
>>23613794>Questionable praxis.At least he knew that.>>23613856>I don't think this was Foucault's real intentions, he stayed silent on practical issues because he didn't see himself as good enough to recommend solutions to our problems.Or perhaps it is because Foucault (outside of books) saw collective subjects exerting power as the means of cultural and social change, not individual wankers at Paris 8. (I agree with your thrust, and thrust likewise by the way, let us thrust together, making our points touch.)>If its any reassurance to all the retarded rightoids out there, Foucault's theories can help build a more communitarian and even conservative (genuinely) approach to ethics. e.g. treating Christian or Buddhist rituals as a means of caring for the self and fashioning yourself as a pious or enlightened subject which is what he was working on before he croaked due to fag related illnesses.I read you here as saying that Foucault was an extreme case of French "Blue Labour," where the revolution is subsumed into meaningless moral rituals that sustain community? Have a look at Blue Labour stuff, it is a side of working class politics that was subsumed beneath parliamentary parties and the ideologies of the New Unions. Sounds like it might be up your alley. I'd like to thrust the point of my diké up your alley.>Today, surveillence is everywhere I think wankers call this sousveillance.>In a panopticon, the prisoners are awares/are aware/imagine>People are just bots now. Deleuze predicted all of this.No love for Guattari? How do you read Deleuze as anything other than a Nietzschean workerist "Marxist" in an ideological sense? I mean obviously he just wanted to holiday on the Italian coast and fuck hot young autonomists; but, I defy anyone with fingernails to say that in the 1970s they would not also do as such?
>>23613733>be me at 14>read Madness & Civilization >”woah, le society is bad actually and we should abolish asylums and prisons”>be me now>walk past screeching hobo on the street>”yeah, that guy needs to go away”
>>23614642But Madness and Civilisation doesn't argue for the abolition of social and cultural methods of control of the insane. If you really loved the hobo, you'd kill him and fuck the corpse. Not his corpse, he's ceased to be, the corpse. Fuck the corpse.
>>23614019Foucault came up with this idea of the aesthetics of existence in his later work. He argues (badly) that the Greek and Roman sexuality wasn't governed by a normative morality. Instead they saw life as a work of art and the aim was to live beautifully irrespective of rules. He tries to combine this ancient attitude with Nietzscheanism. Foucault thinks we should aim to establish new forms and styles of life that resists morality built on transcendent rules that involve judgement and enforcement. Unlike morality, ethics should be optional where each individual crafts their unique life as a work of art often in resistance to forms power that try to subjugate them. This is very different from the pessimism of D&P where he basically sees individuals as having virtually no agency and man as dead. Guys like Hadot (who Foucault based his studies on) were very critical of this. First, its historically inaccurate and secondly Foucault's reduction of ethics to "aesthetics of existence" can lead to the kind of inane narcissism you see on social media and its what got him killed. It contradicts his other work and he never resolves this contradiction.>>23614070>He makes broad sweeping claims, like denying selfhood, never gives any meaningful justification beyond asserting that we are just conduits for power What? He devoted entire books to outlining why he thinks our sense of self is manufactured and the non-existence of the soul/self is as old as Buddhism. >builds a complex web of self-referential pseudo-intellectualism complete with obfuscatory terminology invented to appeal to egotistical university students The bulk of Foucault's writing is in a traditional and very plain academic style of doing intellectual history and the history of philosophy. The only really wacky books were early ones like Madness and Civilization, the rest are just standard academic writing.>Judith Butler, Saba Mahmood, and Edward Said a conceptual framework to disguise their intellectual bankruptcy.lol this is just the Marxoid meme of everything I don't like in academic lit was caused by Foucault also Said bad, postcolonialism bad, anyone who disagrees with big daddy Lenin bad.>where the revolution is subsumed into meaningless moral rituals that sustain community?No go read his articles on Iran. Spiritual practices of self-transformation as a means of resisting the disciplinary power of the state (political spirituality) is key to revolutions succeeding. Foucault adds that these spiritual practices can be secular and that all revolutions more or less involved them. Revolutions happen when people seek to transform society and transform themselves, possess a will for an alternative style of life, reject state and capital's imposed normative rules.
>>23613733He was only wrong because he did not go far enough. Fortunately for him, Baudrillard took his thinking to the end (Foucault is an implicit reference of his, even in Telemorphosis, his last published text). Defecooze, on the other hand, is a mess (note how Forget Foucault does way more damage to Defecooze).
>>23613733Nearly every terminally online incel is a Focaultian Biopoliticist without even knowing it so I'd say he was wrong
>>23613733He seems to have been a pretty immoral person at times. But I like his books and thought his method was done well.
>>23614868> He devoted entire books to outlining why he thinks our sense of self is manufacturedEntirely self-referential texts which display a lack of meaningful interaction with the wider body of philosophy. Throw in a misinterpretation of Nietzsche here and there and voila. >The bulk of Foucault's writing is in a traditional and very plain academic style of doing intellectual history and the history of philosophyYou're just wrong. Foucault admits to doing the opposite to appeal to French academia. Every critical theorist I've ever spoken to has admitted this point. No one thinks he was a traditional writer or had a plain method. What makes you think this?>lol this is just the Marxoid meme of everything I don't like in academic lit was caused by FoucaultNo these are people who directly reference Foucault in their major works and leverage Foucault's analyses of selfhood, localized critiques, and subjugated knowledges to make their arguments. The problem with them is that they bring nothing new to the table. They just take Foucault's analyses, then apply them to the most absurd limit, and then defend this limit to death. >where the revolution is subsumed into meaningless moral rituals that sustain community?"Here let me prove how critical theorists don't exist in a completely self-referential bubble, you actually just need to read this critical theorist account on revolution and selfhood"
>>23613856Explain in a nonbullshit way how>People are just bots now. Deleuze predicted all of this.
>>23614946This. Baudrillard is the logical extension of Foucault and he seriously does not get mentioned nearly enough.
>>23613733I think the way Covid was handled proved him right about Biopolitics once and for all.
>>23615375Baudrillard is the logical extension of Situationism
His whole philosophy was born out of his need to justify his own depravity, it's wasn't born front a genuine concern for a high moral idea, just the need to justify fucking other dudes and even molesting kids, do you really want to take his philosophy seriously?
>>23615481that makes him sound badass as fuck though
>>23615495Sure, if you want to die earlier getting AIDS or get shot in the back of your head, then go ahead. Every lifestyle has a price to pay, you can LARPS as a gay Ubermensch that doesn't care about moral, but don't act surprised when society kills you or you get killed by your own stupidly, reality doesn't care about your fake Ubermensch morals and we live a society, get rekt depraved.
>>23615340>Entirely self-referential texts which display a lack of meaningful interaction with the wider body of philosophyFoucault based a huge amount of his work on Pierre Hadot, the Annals school, Althusser, and Heidegger. These might not be big names in the Anglo-American tradition, but its false to say his work is just self-referential. He references everyone from Benjamin Rush and Jeremy Benthem to Nietzsche, Satre, and Heidegger, the Stoics and Epicureans, the early Church fathers etc. That's hardly self-referential. >Foucault admits to doing the opposite to appeal to French academia. Yeah, he did say Archaeology of Knowledge was written just out of pure careerism, but if you look at his mature works and lectures they are just plain academic writing in the traditional style of intellectual history. Stylistically, the History of Sexuality isn't all that different in style and rhetoric to what contemporaries like Hadot were writing. >No these are people who directly reference Foucault in their major works and leverage Foucault's analyses of selfhood, localized critiques, and subjugated knowledges to make their arguments. The problem with them is that they bring nothing new to the table. They just take Foucault's analyses, then apply them to the most absurd limit, and then defend this limit to death. Said wasn't really a follower of Foucault at all. He actually opposed many of Foucault's theories of power and subjectivity, only borrowing the concept of discourse for Orientalism. Said is essentially a classic structuralist. He never attempted to defend subjugated knowledges, he was a hardcore partisan of the Western Enlightenment who was fiercely anti-religious. Mahmood was really a kind of neo-Aristotelian virtue ethicist who's views are more in line with Alisdair Macintyre or Charles Taylor, both eminent analytic philosophers, and while she does borrow from Focuault and Butler she rejects the conclusions of their critique of subjectivity in favor of communitarianism. Butler is the only real Foucauldian here, and while it has its roots in De Beauvoir and Goffman, her theory of gender performativity does bring something new to the table since Foucault never presents such a theory. Its pretty clear you've never read these people. The claim that critical theory is insular and self-referential is superficial. You could say this of Aristotelians, Marxists, structuralists, liberal economists or practially any other bunch of people. I'd say Foucualt was far less guilty of this, he travelled widely, wrote about everything from Californian drug culture to Zen Buddhist monestaries. This is hardly closeted elitism. As for "meaningless rituals", every revolutionary group from the Jacobins to the Bolsheviks have insisted on the need to form a new revolutionary man. Revolutions require an impulse to transform society and the self. Foucualt wasn't saying anything new here.
>>23615503life isn't a contest about who lives the longest
>>23615514It's a long game max the happiness and tranquility, and that can only be achieve trough cooperation, if you want to die earlier and miserable, that sure you can LARP as a Ubermensch.
The Nietzschean idea of Ubermensch is a retarded idea, thinking one is outside of society and living beyond and above other, the end of every Ubermensch is dying alone or getting killed by someone, Nietzsche was a retarded.
Poster boy for the phenomenon of lefty ideology being little more than elaborate justifications of the author's sexual fetishes and aberrations.
>>23615667True
>>23615053Paglia in Academe in the Hour of the Wolf implied that he spread HIV knowingly.
>>23613786Panopticon is really interesting. Not sure its philosophy but its interesting
>>23615495that makes him the usual atheist bourgeois, or just a woman
>>23616108tautology
>>23615506literally the only poster ITT who isn't a gigantic retard
>>23615347Deleuze claimed society is transitioning away from the panoptic model Foucault described to soceities of control. In that model, people pass through closed institutions (schools, factories, offices etc) where people are confined and subjected to the rules and laws which are enforced through surveillence. Delueze points out that big hospitals are a thing of the past. Now we have local clinics, community healthcare, home care etc. Surveillence is now spread throughout society without people being confined to one building. In a society of control, people produce data which is stored and collected, access to certain areas of life is tightly controlled by passwords, ID cards, even paywalls on news sites. Society is like one huge subway system where you are given the option of taking which ever train you like to whatever station you choose but you can't leave the system and wherever you go you are tracked and the role you've been assigned, your behavior, factors in to what you can access or if you are punished. We are now watched all the time and made to psychologically conform all the time because your boss can fire you for an instagram post or something you said at a bar can get you cancelled. There is no privacy just control.An extreme example is the US drone program in the Middle East. The NSA run a massive program to collect everyone's cellphone metadata. This data is then put through a program which gives everyone a score on their likelihood of being an Islamic terrorist according to a set criteria. This can be things like posting anti-government content online, watching religious videos, travelling frequently, making lots of calls etc. if you score high enough, the program automatically throws your name onto the drone kill list. This is automated extrajudicial killing powered by predictive data analytics where people are killed not based on what they have actually done but on what a computer thinks they might do in the future, like the pre-crime squad from the Philip K Dick novel. What's the effect of this? A chilling atmosphere where ordinary people stay quiet and remain perfectly controlled.
>>23617323>The NSA run a massive program to collect everyone's cellphone metadataWhat the fuck, was this revealed by Snowden or what?
He's a based anarco-gaullist
>>23618282>anarco-gaullisthow does that work?
>>23618577Keep rioting until the General comes out of the grave to restore order.It's the main ideology of France since 1945.
>>23613733as a law student, him, Agamben and Pashukanis are figures I take the most from.Foucault especially really forced me to change my opinion on matters with Discipline and Punish, his other works like Madness and Civ, History of Sex vol 1, Birth of the Clinic, Order of Things and importantly his lecture series (think Security, Territory and Population) are some of the most valuable pieces of work I've ever engaged with. I wish I wasnt sold the lie of him being this 'needlessly abstract pseud who engages in philosophistry' which deterred me from reading his works for years.As for the pedo allegations, that discourse is more for people who care about superficial matters rather than engaging with subject matter substantively. He could kill babies and it wouldnt change my views of his analysis.
>>23618593>As for the pedo allegations, that discourse is more for people who care about superficial matters rather than engaging with subject matter substantively. He could kill babies and it wouldnt change my views of his analysis.You're wrong to discount personal conduct and engage in purely logical analysis. What things people are led to because of their ideas matter. Foucault had a lot right with his analysis but his total lack of a moral fiber doomed him as it dooms people who follow his ideas today.
>>23618593You should read Forget Foucault and also Seduction by Baudrillard
Homosexual pedophile dead from aids
>>23618787>John Eastburn Boswell (March 20, 1947 – December 24, 1994) was an American historian and a full professor at Yale University. Many of Boswell's studies focused on the issue of religion and homosexuality, specifically Christianity and homosexuality. All of his work focused on the history of those at the margins of society. >Boswell's methodology and conclusions have been disputed by many historians.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] > In 1994, Boswell's fourth book, Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe, was published. He died that same year from AIDS-related complications. crazy how that happens
>>23618787Oh no he... le died... earlier than he would have naturally... the horror
>>23618640This sounds like something Focault would say lol. The pedo allegations were made by one guy, who's an ex-leftist turned neocon. Those allegations haven't been corroborated. There are no witnesses, no victims have come forward despite ample opportunity, not even other allegations. >Foucault had a lot right with his analysis but his total lack of a moral fiber doomed him as it dooms people who follow his ideas today.He was very involved in activism and you can see from his interviews that he did have a strong idea of right and wrong. The problem is Foucault's ethics are incoherent and he doesn't give us a yardstick for distinguishing between right and wrong while at the same time saying such a yardstick is generally a product of power relations. To be fair, Foucualt saw his books as tools that other people could draw on for their own reasons independent of some kind of Foucauldism. He didn't want to impose his views and end up like Marx with a bunch of cult like followers. Its also true that he didn't have solutions for a lot of the problems he analyzed and wanted to leave that to more competant people.
>>23613856Also just a general lack of any and all prudance, something that many modern philosophers are deathly allergic to.
>>23617510Nah. He's talking out of his ass. Although it might speak to his desire to be a disposable piece of trash. Disposability is an actual fetish real people engage in.
>>23617510>The US court of appeals has ruled that the bulk collection of telephone metadata is unlawful, in a landmark decision that clears the way for a full legal challenge against the National Security Agency.>A panel of three federal judges for the second circuit overturned an earlier ruling that the controversial surveillance practice first revealed to the US public by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013 could not be subject to judicial review.Good thing they stopped. Haha
>>23613733Question for the guys who think this guy was insightful.Was Foucault a moral relativist?
>>23619530I hate to break your edging but there was never going to be a drone that was going to fly over your home and kill you unprovoked. I hate to tell you this but you have to actually attack a police officer if you want to get disposed of.
>>23619574Is this you too? >>23619513
>>23619621take a guess.
>>23619627That's why I asked. The blatant lying, the passive agressive reddit snark, and coomerspeak leads me to conclude that it is.
>>23619661ok
>>23617510>>23619661You literally could have just typed in "nsa cellphone metadata" into your search bar and had your answer you big baby.https://www.pogo.org/analysis/the-history-and-future-of-mass-metadata-surveillanceGo read the intercept or watch a glen greenwald interview or something
>>23619567No, Focualt clearly had an idea of right and wrong. What Foucault said isn't that morals are relative, but that whatever a society deems true or false or rational or good are all shaped by power dynamics in that society. Its classic knowledge = power. In History of Sexuality, Foucualt basically says he isn't interested in weighing in on debates about why some people are gay, or if homosexuality is a disease, or how society should deal with pedos or children who are sexually active. Instead, he wants to explore why we have these debates and their history and point out how these ideas are shaped by power relations. Foucault only dealt with morality and ethics at the end of his life. He wanted to promote the idea of each individual life as a work of art where the aim is take care of the self and craft and fashion the self to be beautiful and artistic. This should be done without an overarching law or a set of judgemental standards like Judeo-Christian or liberal moralism. He's not quite a virtue ethicist because he doesn't online a set of virtues or how they can be distinguished from vices. A lot of people in the philsophy of ethics like Taylor, MacIntyre, and Hadot criticized him for this. Taylor thinks we can fix Foucualt's ethics by adding the Christian principal of agape love. Basically, Foucault's ethical philosophy is really interesting but half baked and broken. So he wasn't a moral relativist his ideas were just really flawed and unfinished.>>23617510https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKYNET_(surveillance_program)>>23619530The US national security and intelligence system is almost unsupervised and there is no way to confirm if they actually obey these court orders. Obviously, the US government treats the homland differently than the Middle East, but some of those techniques will trickle down eventually.
>>23619706>Instead, he wants to explore why we have these debates and their history and point out how these ideas are shaped by power relations.In other words, he does not believe that Homosexuality is a disease. Rather, he states that it clearly is not a disease, by saying that those viewpoints are only sprung forth due to power dynamics (which he knows with 100% certainty is true).
>>23619706>No, Focualt clearly had an idea of right and wrong.Moral relativists generally tend to have their own ideas of right and wrong. Protagoras was not a nihilist.
>>23619661I engage in coomerspeak because I am clearly speaking to a coomer in denial
>>23619724Whatever made your brain link snowden to fetishes and edging, sure
>>23619270> Those allegations haven't been corroboratedThe man defended pedophiles in History of Sexuality vol. 1 and laughed at how hysterical and backwards the past was by putting them to death
Reducing a discussion to a discussion of what is right and wrong is something done by simple people with simple minds.
>>23619719The idea he was a moral relativist comes from a leftist misinterpretation of what he was saying. When lefty sees Foucault say truth or morality are shaped by power, and of course power is something leftists hate, they think that Foucualt is a nihilist. The thing is, Foucault doesn't see power as a bad thing. He sees power as a productive and creative force that's necessary for social life, not some evil to be liberated from as leftists and liberals think. >>23619736In HoS Foucault points out that in the past there was a looser attitude to child sexuality and sexual relations between children and adults. Like homosexuality, pedophilia doesn't become a thing until the 19th century with the rise of new disciplinary procedures, psychiatry, and sexology etc. I mean, he doesn't really do much defending in HoS at all really. He just explores how these changes came about and outlines his critique of the repressive hypothesis etc.
>>23613856Fair critique. It's interesting but extremely hollow feeling.
>>23620559>homosexuality and pedophilia weren't a thing until the 19th century Yes they were and they were seen as abhorrent. Marriage was allowed at younger ages but not kiddie diddling. Roman law had 12 as the age for marriage and it was only that low because marriage was a political expedient. In general marriage wouldn't take place until menarche, which didn't happen until 14-16 back when the enviornment wasn't loaded with birth control, micro plastics and hormones.
>>23613991doctors
>>23613856>>23614868>>23619706I knew that Pierre Hadot was critical of the later Foucault. But there aren't many translations available. If I want to know Hadot's criticisms, what book would be suitable for this? maybe an interview? I don't care if it's translated, just give me the title of it.
>>23613733>Fool coalNo.
I enjoyed his debate with Chomsky.
>>23613773Read Madness. That's a masterpiece But D&P is my favorite
>>23620559I dont think Michel saw power as good or bad, just unavoidable and inevitable. Omnipresent if living beings are existing. The goal of his work seemed to be about deconstructing concepts so that, as we move toward the future, we can become more conscious and less unnecessarily harmful toward ourselves and one another.
