Re: archaeology

In a message dated 97-10-12 22:16:13 EDT, you write:

> Only recently have I begun to read Foucault and am confused on one point.
> can't one perform an archaeology on arch. to point to it existence only
> within a discursive formation. It makes me think that it is circular. What
> would be ther response?

The fact that Foucault's archaeology can be pointed to as an instance of
the archaeological method would not, I imagine, bother him at all. The
claim that 'discourse is discursive' (whatever that means; just using it
as an example) is itself discursive, but that does not undermine the
insight. It may be further evidence of the insight.

--John >>


I thought that myself, but then I started thinking about Plato's usage of
hypothesis testing. The method of hypothesis testing can't be used to test
itself because it is circular. That is why Plato had to ground it in other
proofs. The concept of discursive formations excludes other grounds to prove
itself. An archaeology of archaeology would then be the only way to get at
its justifications, but at the same time it would refute itself because it
destroys its own premise in reaching the conclusion. It seems that there is
is then need of grounding, but that grounding is artificial and incomplete
and an archaeology would have to be performed on it. An then the circle keeps


Partial thread listing: