On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, Quetzil Castaneda wrote:
> At 09:14 PM 4/27/96 +0100, you wrote:
> Dave.,
>
> can you explain how the use of ..." overarching periodizations, [and]
> simultaneous
> >transitions between modes of discourse etc. "
>
> IMPLY, as you asserted,:
>
>
> >either a sort of virtual historical subject, or a 'hidden hand' type
> >mechanism by which unintended effects of actions build up into coherent
> >wholes.
> >
> also can elaborate on what you mean by "simultaneous transitions betw. modes
> of discourse" -- i am not clear on the referent.
>
> thanks.
>
> q,
>
>
Sure.
Well, in reverse order: by simultaneous transitions etc. I was primarily
thinking of the method of analysis propounded in the Archaeology of
Knowledge, which denies such ideas as 'tradition' and 'influence'
validity but sees different objects, styles, methods and thematic
strategies produced by a 'system of dispersion', and which emphasizes
abrupt transitions between ways of speaking - e.g. the different ways of
talking about 'madness' in the C18 and C19, which F. insists do not share
common objects/styles/methods/thematics. Also, I believe in Words and
Things he claims that pol. economy, linguistics and biology go through
simultaneous and analogous changes at certain points, but I haven't read it.
Your first question: I think that if there are (relatively) sudden
transitions between 'modes of discourse' , there must be a mechanism by
which they come about. The only ones I can think of are 1. the
explanatory device of a hypothetical 'subject of the history of thought'
or 2. a non-subjective device which like the free market (which can also
produce sudden simultaneous changes e.g. gluts and shortages, stockmarket
crashes) would depend on the unintended consequences of human action. I
prefer the second alternative personally, but I wonder what exactly such
a device/phenomenon would look like.
Dave Hugh-Jones
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
'Yes, that's my mother all right, but my mother's the Virgin Mary, you know.'
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
dash2@xxxxxxxxx
> At 09:14 PM 4/27/96 +0100, you wrote:
> Dave.,
>
> can you explain how the use of ..." overarching periodizations, [and]
> simultaneous
> >transitions between modes of discourse etc. "
>
> IMPLY, as you asserted,:
>
>
> >either a sort of virtual historical subject, or a 'hidden hand' type
> >mechanism by which unintended effects of actions build up into coherent
> >wholes.
> >
> also can elaborate on what you mean by "simultaneous transitions betw. modes
> of discourse" -- i am not clear on the referent.
>
> thanks.
>
> q,
>
>
Sure.
Well, in reverse order: by simultaneous transitions etc. I was primarily
thinking of the method of analysis propounded in the Archaeology of
Knowledge, which denies such ideas as 'tradition' and 'influence'
validity but sees different objects, styles, methods and thematic
strategies produced by a 'system of dispersion', and which emphasizes
abrupt transitions between ways of speaking - e.g. the different ways of
talking about 'madness' in the C18 and C19, which F. insists do not share
common objects/styles/methods/thematics. Also, I believe in Words and
Things he claims that pol. economy, linguistics and biology go through
simultaneous and analogous changes at certain points, but I haven't read it.
Your first question: I think that if there are (relatively) sudden
transitions between 'modes of discourse' , there must be a mechanism by
which they come about. The only ones I can think of are 1. the
explanatory device of a hypothetical 'subject of the history of thought'
or 2. a non-subjective device which like the free market (which can also
produce sudden simultaneous changes e.g. gluts and shortages, stockmarket
crashes) would depend on the unintended consequences of human action. I
prefer the second alternative personally, but I wonder what exactly such
a device/phenomenon would look like.
Dave Hugh-Jones
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
'Yes, that's my mother all right, but my mother's the Virgin Mary, you know.'
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
dash2@xxxxxxxxx