Discontinuity: This is not FoucaultInterview and movie about Foucault's philosophy

In 2004 in Prague, I met Slovak philosopher Miroslav Marcelli, who hadattended Foucault's lectures in Paris in 80s. We talked about the legacy ofFoucault and contemporary philosophy. Mr. Marcelli taught me philosophy atComenius University in 1995.. I never visited his lectures, I only passed theexam.. The most interesting point was his answer to my 'provocations'replicating the common prejudice about impracticability of the philosophy.He answered "Do you think that e.g. Descartes didn't know about it?" Infact, people tend to think that philosophers or mathematicians, are "asocial"without "social" intelligence, while their occasional isolation (e.g. Nietzsche)is a product of social exclusion, rather than their choice. In 2013 I appliedFoucault's concept of Discontinuity to short 10 minutes movie: Discontinuity,projected in my exhibition "From Animation" in Holland Park, London. Thefilm has 3 parts, ends as it starts to show the significant historical events in 4windows, when the same idea appears to disappear to re-appear.. Foucault'sphilosophy doesn't seem to me so unique now, e.g. the idea that manyhistorical changes or progress itself is often illusionary - masking the powerstructure, had already been explored 515 BC, in depth by Parmenides whoconcluded: the change is impossible.

published:Československý svet, 2004 Foucault News, 2013FREEDOM OF IDENTITY

You participated in Foucault'slectures...

In 1981, I was attending Foucault’sseminars at College de France. His topic -History of Sexuality, seemed irrelevant tomy traditional academic orientation.Everything changed after his first lecture.

DISCONTINUITY AND EXCLUSIONDid Foucault’s criticism of universalconcepts deny differences (in charm,intellect, morality)?

Foucault doesn't deny differences, onlyquestions conditions of their possibility.The differences transfer in our responsesto judgements whose basis is however

Miro Brada, 2004

What persuaded you? In his view the topic mattered to classicGerman philosophy. Foucault commentedKant's article 'What's Enlightenment?’occupied by the same question: who arewe, heirs of Enlightenment, now? How he presented it? I witnessed thinking developing with alldrama of unexpected continuations andreversals. It was not that kind of 'course'repeating year by year with the sameconclusion. It was immediately clear,although this not big, bald man read theprepared text. It induced a need tooppose some of his views. What exactly? I doubted ‘archeology of consciousness’excluding non-linguistic aspects. LaterFoucault left it, and several times verychanged his way of thinking. He did notavoid criticism of his previous viewsneither present his work as completed.I'd add to his later ideas about power,self-reflection because peoplesubordinated to the power still decide.Foucault in one of his last interviews saidhe was exploring freedom in all of hiswork. The French had a passion forphilosophy. Could Foucault develophis ideas in Russia? He was tied to the French society in aparticular period, so it's difficult not onlyto imagine the Russian Foucault, but hisappearance could be hardly repeated inFrance today. He was maybe the last onecalled «maître a pensée», master ofthinking. It seems they don't need suchmasters nowadays. But his thinking isn’trestricted to this historic situation. At theend of his life he thought to move toUSA, where his work is still appreciated. What would Foucault say aboutsociety now? To speculate what Foucault would say is

neither natural nor stable. It emerged incertain historical moment whosecircumstances reveal interest to excludethose who differ. Fools? There were times when the higher truthnotifying the future was revealed througha mouth of a fool. How happened, thatsince Enlightenment a fool had beenclassified as a folly and got into enclosedinstitution? This question lead to theFoucault’s first great book: History ofMadness (1961). He will ask suchquestions during whole of his life. Why isan idea once a deep knowledge, markedas a blunder? Is historical, social, cultural, scienceevolution illusionary? Foucault doubted the progress of Westernsociety that should be guaranteed byacquired privileges as scientific advance,humanistic base of law, progressiveeducation. He was not the first critique.Psychologist Jean Piaget noticed similaritybetween Foucault's The words and thethings (1966) and Kuhn's The Structureof Scientific Revolutions (1962). What was his contribution? He particularized steps and processes ofpreconditions. Episteme, the principle ofpower structure, notifies in an indefiniteform, and then transforms itself totheory. The norm to supervise and punishhad only gradually resembled a prison orschool. These motions don't need to beoverlapped by a story of unstoppableprogress of modern society. What's a message of Foucault's bookThis is not a pipe with a pipe'simage? Foucault thought that Magritte's paintingof a pipe entitled This is not a pipe,deviated from imitation that longdominated western art. Plato called suchimages - without predetermined pattern,

risky and paradoxical, as we’d have toempathize his thinking whose essence isnot to empathize (in searching foranswers) other thinking. Being homosexual (died of HIV,1984) what he thought of gaymarriage, drugs, euthanasia? He demanded the equal rights includingright to suicide, but did not considerhimself a representative - sort ofhomosexual thinking, and refused anytries to develop e.g. homosexual art. Herejected the restricted identity, whichcould be also the identity of gayrelationship. He wanted drugs being partof experimenting with own identity, butdidn't propagate indulgence, instead heassumed ethic resulting from a needbeing master of self. Focus on impractical (linguistic,historical) issues can’t give clearanswers. Could philosophyovercome it today? Situation seems new, but philosophydeals with it from its beginning. Do youthink that Athenians did not reproachSocrates impracticability? Or thatDescartes did not know that peoplewanted final solutions? Philosophy set usfree from belief that radical beginningstarts right now. There is its tendency tohistoricise. It does not escape frompresence, only reminds its instability.Philosophy offers nothing to those whohide behind it to still life of definiteanswers, theses, doctrines. Internet opened the newexperimental space: chat, media,web applications, while philosophyseems lagged behind.. Computers and internet revolutionarilyenhanced communication space, butcommunication is not knowledge - eventhough they expect each other. Radicalincrease of communication does not need

simulacra and condemned their creatorsas producers of delusions. Simulacra canexplain many phenomena of ourcontemporary visual culture. According to Foucault, the powerdefines the “author” and its role,while the invention is secondary,irrelevant or an obstacle (e.g.Galileo). How was Foucault as an“author” defined? Foucault challenged the idea of „author“,as a source of hidden abilities andinspirations. Likewise Russian formalistsor art historian Wölfflin thought thatcreator's great secret was an illusion. SoFoucault's position belongs here too. What was Foucault’s contribution? He was dismantling this illusion being achallenge for a thorough historicalanalysis of assumptions. The authorshould be decomposed and reconstructedaccording to different social orders, byrelevant archived texts. As we see theresult of study in archives, we can seeFoucault closer. He - himself authority - viewed theauthority a power tool. Isn't it aparadox? Foucault taught us that history of thoughtof 19 century can be written withoutemphasis on the most recognizedphilosophers: Hegel, Marx. He didn'tclaim that power only represses us, andso we must release ourselves. Herejected the concept of punitive power,and understood its function to repress aswell as create us. He just refused itsinnocent appearance. Power affectsrelation of teacher-student, which doesnot imply to remove the teacher.Understanding history of such relationstransfers their character. Why Bergson, Sartre, Foucault wereso popular in France? Although Bergson was in a bit different

to radically deepen knowledge. Is art oninternet more valuable than art intheatres or exhibition halls? Is it true also for philosophy? Yes, but philosophy does not escape frominternet. Its concepts contributed tounderstanding of internet and relatedchanges. E.g. Barthes hardly anticipatedinternet, but his concept of text as a net,is beneficial. Or cyberspace theoristMitchel uses deterritorialization - a notionelaborated by Gilles Deleuze.

environment than Sartre and Foucault, allthese and similar thinkers, could interestpublic thanks to a solid system ofeducation (philosophy was important partof high school in France), journals, laterradio and TV. Philosophy could takeadvantage of its close link with literature,when Bergson and Sartre got Nobelprizes. Not last, it was a tradition of theFrench scientists to reflect knowledge.

Nietzsche inspired German leaders of WW I / II. Can philosophy preventitself from the abuse? Every idea, theory, book is exploitable, which can't be prevented by its replacementwith simplified receipts or appeals. Philosophy justified some totalities, but at thesame time it doubted them. Well known Marx's thesis says, philosophers till nowjust interpreted the world, but it is about to change it. Some explained it that itshould be changed according to their own needs. Philosophy offers onlyunderstanding, as an assumption for an action.

Discontinuity, The New Art Formhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0R0kp5nwRg