Dear Alessandro,
I mentioned in my reply to you that perhaps my reading is off - whose to
say - here is how I read the passage you are asking about. I welcome
comments regarding my reading.
This reply to you is an "attempt to undertake the history of what has been
said." [ we are trying to understake the history of what has been said by
by Foucault]. This reply is an attempt to 're-do, in the opposite
direction, the work of expression: [Foucault's and mine] 'to go back from
statements preserved throught time and dispersed in space [especially mine
here in cyberspace] , towards that interior secret that preceded them, left
its mark in them, and (in every sense of the term) is betrayed by them.
Thus the nuceus of the initiating subjectivity [I read the initiating
subjectivity to be psychological or social from this section] is freed. [
this essentializes the psychological or social - and places them in the
problematic of trace - they cannot be traced back to a perceived interior -
center] this makes them
"it [appears to refer to the other subjectivity that is closer to the
origin - and a repeat of it and purity - and the purification of
subjectivity- the problem is that the pure subject can never to found - or
traced back to] through the problematic of the trace - 'it' can never be
historically traced back to origin -
The notion of beyond - is a loaded problematic term - as is the notion of
free. I believe that what Foucault is doing to making problematic these
notions as they are associated with the historico-transcendental theme.
Foucault is writing a history here and trying to think differently about
writing history - that is he is trying to not write a history with
historico-transcendental statements - but rather a history of the work of
'expression'.
Again how I read this may be different from how you read it - and I welcome
a response if you do not understand my reading or if your reading is
different from mine. c
Again I believe that Foucaut questions the singular
(historico-transcendental) search for a purity or origin - because of the
problematic of trace - (it is not singular) when you work with "a
subjectivity that always lags behind manifest history."
At 12:26 AM 10/18/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Dear Christine,
>
>a.) it was not my "opinion" to write "that the analysis of statements wants
>to be free of
>such themes". This sentence is a paraphrase of the discussed passages in AK.
>Directly after mentioning the "trace", Foucault writes this sentence: The
>analysis of statements tries to be f r e e of this theme. (my translation
>of the german: Die Aussageanalyse versucht, sich von diesem Thema zu b e f
>r e i e n.)
>
>b.) do you really think that it is incorrect to say, that Foucault or the
>analysis of statements wants to be b e y o n d the human sciences like
>Nietzsche wants to be B e y o n d Good and Evil?
>
>Alessandro
>
>-----Ursprngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Im Auftrag von
>Christine E. Alfery
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Oktober 2000 15:13
>An: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Betreff: Re: AW: Archaeology of Knowledge, The trace
>
>
>Dear Loren,
>Is Foucault really trying to move 'beyond' (which reads transcendent to me
>- by perhaps I am off in my reading here) a histroco-transcendental theme -
> and for that matter is he trying to 'free' from anything -or his he merely
>questioning the singluar notion (transcendent- historical) of trace, read,
>decipher, and rememberance?
>
>c
>
>At 06:11 AM 10/17/00 +0200, you wrote:
>>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
>>
>>-----Ursprngliche 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 mentioned in my reply to you that perhaps my reading is off - whose to
say - here is how I read the passage you are asking about. I welcome
comments regarding my reading.
This reply to you is an "attempt to undertake the history of what has been
said." [ we are trying to understake the history of what has been said by
by Foucault]. This reply is an attempt to 're-do, in the opposite
direction, the work of expression: [Foucault's and mine] 'to go back from
statements preserved throught time and dispersed in space [especially mine
here in cyberspace] , towards that interior secret that preceded them, left
its mark in them, and (in every sense of the term) is betrayed by them.
Thus the nuceus of the initiating subjectivity [I read the initiating
subjectivity to be psychological or social from this section] is freed. [
this essentializes the psychological or social - and places them in the
problematic of trace - they cannot be traced back to a perceived interior -
center] this makes them
"it [appears to refer to the other subjectivity that is closer to the
origin - and a repeat of it and purity - and the purification of
subjectivity- the problem is that the pure subject can never to found - or
traced back to] through the problematic of the trace - 'it' can never be
historically traced back to origin -
The notion of beyond - is a loaded problematic term - as is the notion of
free. I believe that what Foucault is doing to making problematic these
notions as they are associated with the historico-transcendental theme.
Foucault is writing a history here and trying to think differently about
writing history - that is he is trying to not write a history with
historico-transcendental statements - but rather a history of the work of
'expression'.
Again how I read this may be different from how you read it - and I welcome
a response if you do not understand my reading or if your reading is
different from mine. c
Again I believe that Foucaut questions the singular
(historico-transcendental) search for a purity or origin - because of the
problematic of trace - (it is not singular) when you work with "a
subjectivity that always lags behind manifest history."
At 12:26 AM 10/18/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Dear Christine,
>
>a.) it was not my "opinion" to write "that the analysis of statements wants
>to be free of
>such themes". This sentence is a paraphrase of the discussed passages in AK.
>Directly after mentioning the "trace", Foucault writes this sentence: The
>analysis of statements tries to be f r e e of this theme. (my translation
>of the german: Die Aussageanalyse versucht, sich von diesem Thema zu b e f
>r e i e n.)
>
>b.) do you really think that it is incorrect to say, that Foucault or the
>analysis of statements wants to be b e y o n d the human sciences like
>Nietzsche wants to be B e y o n d Good and Evil?
>
>Alessandro
>
>-----Ursprngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Im Auftrag von
>Christine E. Alfery
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Oktober 2000 15:13
>An: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Betreff: Re: AW: Archaeology of Knowledge, The trace
>
>
>Dear Loren,
>Is Foucault really trying to move 'beyond' (which reads transcendent to me
>- by perhaps I am off in my reading here) a histroco-transcendental theme -
> and for that matter is he trying to 'free' from anything -or his he merely
>questioning the singluar notion (transcendent- historical) of trace, read,
>decipher, and rememberance?
>
>c
>
>At 06:11 AM 10/17/00 +0200, you wrote:
>>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
>>
>>-----Ursprngliche 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
>>> >
>>
>