>I'll start: if we assume that the prefaces (esp. the second) are
>descriptions of method, what happens to class and the state?
>Bryan Alexander
(Working from Vintage Books,1994 - in English, I have a Forward to English
Edition followed by a Preface - I assume "second" is the one that starts
by classifying animals)
But then, I've no idea what "happens" to class and state. I suppose "The
fundamental codes of a culture " (p xx) are somehow connected with the
state - but are they class specific? are they the "essence" of hegemony?
Where are class and state anyway so that something could "happen" to them?
I have a big problem around here (p xx) anyway. F seems to be drawing a
kind of continuum where culture (folk knowledge?) is on one end and
scientific/philosophical knowledge is on the other. And the "true" order
can sometimes be glimpsed in the middle. (I can't believe this IS what
he's saying, but it sure sounds like it.)
It seems to me that this approach objectifies scientific knowledge - he
says elsewhere he doesn't want to do history of science - but how can he
avoid it?
More confusing, is this "underlying order" meant to be unchangeable. Or is
this the "positive unconscious" of knowledge (p xi) - which seems to
undergo sudden changes as we move from (say) the Classical to the Modern
era?
The whole thing seems to have a lot more Kant in it than I could accept.
Jim
Jim Underwood
Department of Information Systems phone +612 330 1831
University of Technology, Sydney fax +612 330 1807
PO Box 123,
BROADWAY 2007 e-mail: jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AUSTRALIA
http://linus.socs.uts.edu.au/~jim/
------------------
>descriptions of method, what happens to class and the state?
>Bryan Alexander
(Working from Vintage Books,1994 - in English, I have a Forward to English
Edition followed by a Preface - I assume "second" is the one that starts
by classifying animals)
But then, I've no idea what "happens" to class and state. I suppose "The
fundamental codes of a culture " (p xx) are somehow connected with the
state - but are they class specific? are they the "essence" of hegemony?
Where are class and state anyway so that something could "happen" to them?
I have a big problem around here (p xx) anyway. F seems to be drawing a
kind of continuum where culture (folk knowledge?) is on one end and
scientific/philosophical knowledge is on the other. And the "true" order
can sometimes be glimpsed in the middle. (I can't believe this IS what
he's saying, but it sure sounds like it.)
It seems to me that this approach objectifies scientific knowledge - he
says elsewhere he doesn't want to do history of science - but how can he
avoid it?
More confusing, is this "underlying order" meant to be unchangeable. Or is
this the "positive unconscious" of knowledge (p xi) - which seems to
undergo sudden changes as we move from (say) the Classical to the Modern
era?
The whole thing seems to have a lot more Kant in it than I could accept.
Jim
Jim Underwood
Department of Information Systems phone +612 330 1831
University of Technology, Sydney fax +612 330 1807
PO Box 123,
BROADWAY 2007 e-mail: jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AUSTRALIA
http://linus.socs.uts.edu.au/~jim/
------------------