-----Mensaje original-----
De: aarouxet <aarouxet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Para: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fecha: Martes 17 de Agosto de 1999 04:56 PM
Asunto: RE:
>Dear Cameron:
>I'm Andrea, I'm going to try to be more specific.
>Im interested in the problem of the abandom of the phenomenological
horizon,
>the horizon of the Dasein, Menschsein and Sinn and the adoption of the
>concept of structure from Dumezil. At the University of Buenos Aires, we
>consider 4 periods in Foucault's work, the first is the phenomenologic one,
>for example the introduction to Binswanger and Maladie mental et
>personnalite. The second one is the archeological period, where's Foucault
>made his approach to structuralism and at the same time he made his attemp
>for a separation from that group. The question is: is archeologie as a
>method a response for the hegelian problem of en sui and per sui as
>phenomenologie tried to be? The archeologic period depends on a work on
>language following Blanchot and Bataille, a work on science and knowledge
>following Canguilhem, Koyré, etc and a work on history following Nietzsche.
>I want to know if in your opinion you think that archeolgy succeeds in
being
>an alternative for phenomenology and estructuralism.
>Andrea Arouxet <aarouxet@xxxxxxxxxxxx<
>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: cameron duff <cameron.duff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Para: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
><foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Fecha: Martes 17 de Agosto de 1999 02:20 AM
>Asunto: Re:
>
>
>>At 02:55 16/08/1999 -0300, you wrote:
>>> >I'm interesting in discuss the problem of methodology in Foucult's
>>>works > especially the abandom of phenomenology and estructuralism, and
>>>the >decision of make his own method, callled archeology.
>>><<
>>
>>Hi Mr/Ms Anonymous!
>>
>>I share your interest in Foucault's methods despite prevailing
contestation
>>over the appropriateness of imputing a methodology to Foucault's critical
>>and historical analyses! Perhaps, however, you might be a little more
>>specific in your queries. You've drawn attention to a broad area here and
>>I'm sure any number of good secondary texts exist covering such problems;
>>Dreyfus and Rabinow's Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics is probably
the
>>best place to start.
>>
>>I have my own query vis-a-vis Foucault and methods and that's the extent
to
>>which genealogy might be understood as a method applicable to different
>>historical work. Foucault is very good on describing the attitude or
>>critical imperatives one might bring to genealogical inquiry but the
>>specific features of such work appear more elusive to me! Perhaps others
>>might have some comments/advice?
>>
>>cheers,
>>
>>cameron duff
>>
>>brisbane
>>
>