unless i'm mistaken, it's part of a series that describes approaches to
discourse
other than the one foucault's proffering; in this context, examining
statements "in the
systematic form of exteriority" (120).
At 07:45 PM 10/16/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Well, i found the sentence i was looking for...on pg 121... "it ['this
>other history'] can be purified in the problematic of the trace, which,
>prior to all speech, is the opening of inscription, the gap of deferred
>time, it is always the historico-transcendental theme that is reinvested".
>
>unfortunately, i'm having difficulty understanding the context surrounding
>this statement.. if he's summarizing a line of thought that he wishes to
>move beyond, or placing his analyses of the statement within this
>thought. help?
>
>loren
>
>
>At 08:24 PM 10/16/00 -0700, you wrote:
>>hi loren,
>>
>>try pages 104 and 105 of AK. -- dan smith
>>
>>At 06:39 PM 10/16/00 -0500, you wrote:
>> >there is a place in AK foucault specifically mentions the trace (in the
>> >derridian sense; or--probably in the derridian sense).. I've looked all
>> >over for it, because i've seen it before when referenced in a secondary
>> >source.. does anyone know where that might be? (arguably the entirety of
>> >the book is a critique of the trace, but i'm looking for an explicit
>> mention)
>> >
>> >loren
>> >
>
discourse
other than the one foucault's proffering; in this context, examining
statements "in the
systematic form of exteriority" (120).
At 07:45 PM 10/16/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Well, i found the sentence i was looking for...on pg 121... "it ['this
>other history'] can be purified in the problematic of the trace, which,
>prior to all speech, is the opening of inscription, the gap of deferred
>time, it is always the historico-transcendental theme that is reinvested".
>
>unfortunately, i'm having difficulty understanding the context surrounding
>this statement.. if he's summarizing a line of thought that he wishes to
>move beyond, or placing his analyses of the statement within this
>thought. help?
>
>loren
>
>
>At 08:24 PM 10/16/00 -0700, you wrote:
>>hi loren,
>>
>>try pages 104 and 105 of AK. -- dan smith
>>
>>At 06:39 PM 10/16/00 -0500, you wrote:
>> >there is a place in AK foucault specifically mentions the trace (in the
>> >derridian sense; or--probably in the derridian sense).. I've looked all
>> >over for it, because i've seen it before when referenced in a secondary
>> >source.. does anyone know where that might be? (arguably the entirety of
>> >the book is a critique of the trace, but i'm looking for an explicit
>> mention)
>> >
>> >loren
>> >
>