Jivko wrote
> arent knowledge much like conscious? Dont You rather
> mean the "historical unconscious"?
This is where you need to understand the difference between savoir and
connaissance. The English preface to The Order of Things suggests he wants
to look at the "positive unconscious of knowledge: a level that eludes the
consciousness of the scientist and yet is part of scientific discourse".
"What was common to the natural history, the economics, and the grammar of
the Classical period was certainly not present to the consciousness of the
scientist. but unknown to themselves, the naturalists, economists, and
grammarians employed the same rules to define the objects proper to their
own study, to form their concepts, to build their theories. It is these
rules of formation which were never formulated in their own right, but are
to be found only in widely differing theories, concepts, and objects of
study, that I have tried to reveal, by isolating, as their specific locus, a
level that I have called, somewhat arbitrarily perhaps, archaeological" (OT
xi).
The French version of this text, which is a retranslation of the English, is
found in Dits et ecrits (Vol II). Presumably the original French is lost.
This level of knowledge - savoir - can be thought of as unconscious because
it is not articulated explicitly, consciously, by those that utilise it.
Rather, it is what allows, that is the condition of possibility, for what
might be seen as 'conscious' knowledge, that is, connaissance.
I don't think the unconscious/conscious distinction is terribly useful, but
i think that's what Foucault is driving at. As i said, the distinction
between savoir and connaissance.
Stuart
> arent knowledge much like conscious? Dont You rather
> mean the "historical unconscious"?
This is where you need to understand the difference between savoir and
connaissance. The English preface to The Order of Things suggests he wants
to look at the "positive unconscious of knowledge: a level that eludes the
consciousness of the scientist and yet is part of scientific discourse".
"What was common to the natural history, the economics, and the grammar of
the Classical period was certainly not present to the consciousness of the
scientist. but unknown to themselves, the naturalists, economists, and
grammarians employed the same rules to define the objects proper to their
own study, to form their concepts, to build their theories. It is these
rules of formation which were never formulated in their own right, but are
to be found only in widely differing theories, concepts, and objects of
study, that I have tried to reveal, by isolating, as their specific locus, a
level that I have called, somewhat arbitrarily perhaps, archaeological" (OT
xi).
The French version of this text, which is a retranslation of the English, is
found in Dits et ecrits (Vol II). Presumably the original French is lost.
This level of knowledge - savoir - can be thought of as unconscious because
it is not articulated explicitly, consciously, by those that utilise it.
Rather, it is what allows, that is the condition of possibility, for what
might be seen as 'conscious' knowledge, that is, connaissance.
I don't think the unconscious/conscious distinction is terribly useful, but
i think that's what Foucault is driving at. As i said, the distinction
between savoir and connaissance.
Stuart