Dear Loren,
I think that the sentences you quoted are in regard to the context very
clear, because Foucault wants to be beyond every kind of
historico-transcendental theme. Consequently it is written a few sentences
under your quotation, that the analysis of statements wants to be free of
such themes, which also means to be beyond any kind of human sciences. (in
this context: sociology, psychology, evolution of mentalities, look above!)
Two pages later he writes about the 4 links:
reading-trace-deciphering-remembrance, and they are definitively not
connected to the analysis of statements. In general the whole passage in
this chapter is dedicated to precise the aspects of analysis of statements.
But now I understand very well, why you read this passages in connection to
Derrida. Two sides before you quoted it is written: "There is no text
below." The french original: "Il n'ya pas de texte d'en dessous." Sounds
like Derrida, isn't it?
Alessandro
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Im Auftrag von Loren
Dent
Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Oktober 2000 02:45
An: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: Archaeology of Knowledge, The trace
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
> >
I think that the sentences you quoted are in regard to the context very
clear, because Foucault wants to be beyond every kind of
historico-transcendental theme. Consequently it is written a few sentences
under your quotation, that the analysis of statements wants to be free of
such themes, which also means to be beyond any kind of human sciences. (in
this context: sociology, psychology, evolution of mentalities, look above!)
Two pages later he writes about the 4 links:
reading-trace-deciphering-remembrance, and they are definitively not
connected to the analysis of statements. In general the whole passage in
this chapter is dedicated to precise the aspects of analysis of statements.
But now I understand very well, why you read this passages in connection to
Derrida. Two sides before you quoted it is written: "There is no text
below." The french original: "Il n'ya pas de texte d'en dessous." Sounds
like Derrida, isn't it?
Alessandro
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Im Auftrag von Loren
Dent
Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Oktober 2000 02:45
An: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: Archaeology of Knowledge, The trace
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
> >