The funny thing here is that right now im working
exactly on this! And Your quote fills precise my
puzzle! Man, I was trying to define the unconcious of
the socilogy exactly in this sense!! Thank you for the
quote! We actulay dont have bulgarian translation of
The Order of the Things.
Regards!
Jivko
--- Stuart Elden <stuart.elden@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
exactly on this! And Your quote fills precise my
puzzle! Man, I was trying to define the unconcious of
the socilogy exactly in this sense!! Thank you for the
quote! We actulay dont have bulgarian translation of
The Order of the Things.
Regards!
Jivko
--- Stuart Elden <stuart.elden@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/