Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 04:41:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Archaeology/Genealogy


Thank you Yves! It is exactly this passage, thank you
for doing this work! I still think that F makes a
difference here between theory , and that what he
does. It leads me to the question can i interprete it
as a theory. Obviously i cant. But this is not big
problem, il n'est pas tel grave. But it thus raises
the question what is the difference between theory and
 archeaology.

thanks again!
jivko

--- Yves Winter <winter-AT-lsealumni.com> wrote:
> I assume Jivko refers to the third chapter of the
> third part of AK (_La
> description des noncs_), where Foucault, under
> subheading _B_ says:
> 
> " Mais on voit galement que je ne dveloppe pas ici
> une thorie, au sens
> strict et fort du terme: la dduction,  partir d'un
> certain nombre
> d'axiomes, d'un modle abstrait applicable  un nombre
> indfini de
> descriptions empiriques. D'un tel difice, s'il est
> jamais possible, le
> temps n'est certainement pas venu. [...] Je ne
> procde pas par dduction
> linaire, mais plutt par cercles concentriques, et je
> vais tantt vers les
> plus extrieurs tantt vers les plus intrieurs. [...]
> Et je considrerai,
> non pas que j'ai bti un modle thorique rigoureux,
> mais que j'ai libr un
> domaine cohrent de description [...] Plutt que de
> fonder [italics] en
> droit une thorie - et avant de pouvoir ventuellement
> le faire (je ne nie
> pas que je regrette de n'y tre pas encore parvenu) -
> il s'agit pour
> l'instant d'tablir [italics] une possibilit."
> 
> L'archologie du savoir, pp. 149f.
> 
> Based on this paragraph, I think Stuart is right and
> you cannot construe
> Foucault to be some enemy of theory. The opposition
> between archeology and
> theory is in my view misplaced. True, Foucault does
> imply such an opposition
> in the paragraph above, but his definition of theory
> here is an extremely
> narrow one. Also, interestingly enough, he says, he
> regrets not being able
> to _de iure_ found a theory.
> 
> regards, yves
> 
> On 16/11/01 19:06, "Stuart Elden" 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