File spoon-archives/foucault.archive/foucault_2001/foucault.0111, message 33


Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 09:14:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Archaeology/Genealogy


what is the problem with the generalisations, anyway?
are you some kind of discursive policeman, not leting
through the customs of the discurs a single poor
generalisation:-)))))?
Jivko
--- Stuart Elden <stuart.elden-AT-clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Jivko
> 
> You've lost me. I don't follow the logic of your
> last posts.
> 
> >but it is certain , that knowledge is not that kind
> of
> weapon in the world outside this one where they
> speak
> in english, and knowledgeis not only a weapon, we
> must
> addmit(and is not the only weapon).
> 
> Given that this was a discussion of a passage i
> referred back to the
> original French this makes no sense to me. The final
> two suggestions are
> fine, but don't really add or challenge anything.
> 
> >Well, lets see ...who didnt read the book:-)))
> In a place, which a cannot point right now, he sais
> that this book is not theory, i.e. it does not have
> deductive form, and in that moment the book is not
> grown enough to become theory. So, a friend of mine
> told me :"wait,this is archeaology, its not theory-
> because the archeologist have his hands dirty, and
> the
> theorist dont"
> 
> So, this rests on a particular definition of theory.
> First how you report
> Foucault frames it, then the model you take from
> your friend. I remember
> something similar to what you say F says, but i also
> could point to places
> where he does describe it as theory. Asking you for
> a reference to
> substantiate a claim is fair enough, surely?
> 
> >But there is a certain theory in that book:exactly,
> the theory of l'enonces, and another part, which is
> not exactly theory.
> 
> I'd like you to spell this out, with references if
> possible.
> 
> As I said, i don't have a problem with theory. I
> have problems with how some
> people define theory, like if theory had to be
> deductive, or theory means
> not having your hands dirty, then i probably
> wouldn't be doing theory.
> 
> >Derrida is here, as i mentioned - and is all the
> time
> logo(locu)centrism springing from everyone in the
> conference.
> So thats why i think that the west is logocentric,
> and
> the rest of the world is not so logocentric. For
> example we , Bulgarians, we are more musical.
> 
> I think others on the list have challenged these
> generalisations before...
> 
> Stuart
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005