There are a lot of things wrong with the last post, which has been sitting there bothering me for a couple of days while I took care of teaching and administrative business. A big one is that it (and its antecedent) assumes that freedom must be defined with or against the integral sovereign liberal self, and on or counter to a continuum from complete autonomy to complete heteronomy (sometimes called the ‘structure / agency problem’).
Thinking as I do that the integral self is a performative myth and that selves are dynamic composites built out of the networkings of everything from amino acids to cosmic rays to neighborhoods and grandmas; and that the omnipotence of complete autonomy is part of the imaginative theological juvenilia of our species, with complete heteronomy a lazy inversion we frighten ourselves with like a ghost story; the last post is pretty dumb. But I like Foucault, Camus and Hegel – they’re part of my self – so I’m not quite ready to give them up yet.
I’d like that post to be at least productively wrong as opposed to not even wrong. Any other thoughts?