Ali
A couple of points and some questions in response:-
First, sure the level of analysis is at the level of connaissance, but in
order to illuminate the conditions of its possibility, that is the level of
savoir. Which might explain our dialogue. (I think it's kind of like
Heidegger taking the analysis of a being [Dasein] as a way into the problem
of being itself - an ontological inquiry whose mode of access is ontic
knowledge. The problem is people then read Being and Time as an
anthropology, which completely misses the point. And I think people do
similar to Foucault, that is miss the fundamental level)
Do you think that the conceptual apparatus of AK disappears in the later
work?
What do you mean by the conditions of possibility of savoir? (I know what is
meant by the conditions of possibility of connaissance; and i know what you
mean about conditions of possibility)
>I am simply unable to understand how 'positive unconscious of knowledge'
>can constitute the conditions of the possibility of connaisance, to my mind
>we will then be switiching to the gnealogical level.
That's interesting as a formulation, but what would you mean is different
between archaeology and genealogy? I think the differences can be overblown.
The incorporation of power is obviously an issue. But beyond that? To my
mind the formulation you have that you cannot understand is the exact object
of AK, albeit without the particular phrasing of 'positive unconscious'.
> Another problem may be Foucault's loose use of terms like savior and
>connaisance. He has this habit of formulating and reformulating them again
>and again through new angles. This is extremely fruitful at times but can
be >very confusing too.
I don't find this a particular problem. I'm more struck by the continuity of
Foucault's work, at least until the very late pieces (which is one of the
issues I'm currently working on). To my mind Folie et deraison is not that
dissimilar to Surveiller et Punir for example. The explicit methodological
tools might be more overt, or may be altered by the topic reviewed, but i
think the differences of his approaches can be overexaggerated.
I think the publication of his lecture courses is going to do similar things
to what happened when Heidegger's courses were published. It is going to
radically alter our view of Foucault. Those 'silent' periods between
Foucault's major publications i.e. 1968 (or 1970) to 1975; 1976 to 1984 are
already being filled with interesting new material.
But my overall sense is that the continuities of his career will be as
striking as the discontinuities. Foucault once said that he was
characterised as a thinker of discontinuity, but he thought he uncovered
apparent discontinuities and then tried to work out how they developed into
each other. I sense the same may be true of his own thought.
An ongoing inquiry...
Stuart
A couple of points and some questions in response:-
First, sure the level of analysis is at the level of connaissance, but in
order to illuminate the conditions of its possibility, that is the level of
savoir. Which might explain our dialogue. (I think it's kind of like
Heidegger taking the analysis of a being [Dasein] as a way into the problem
of being itself - an ontological inquiry whose mode of access is ontic
knowledge. The problem is people then read Being and Time as an
anthropology, which completely misses the point. And I think people do
similar to Foucault, that is miss the fundamental level)
Do you think that the conceptual apparatus of AK disappears in the later
work?
What do you mean by the conditions of possibility of savoir? (I know what is
meant by the conditions of possibility of connaissance; and i know what you
mean about conditions of possibility)
>I am simply unable to understand how 'positive unconscious of knowledge'
>can constitute the conditions of the possibility of connaisance, to my mind
>we will then be switiching to the gnealogical level.
That's interesting as a formulation, but what would you mean is different
between archaeology and genealogy? I think the differences can be overblown.
The incorporation of power is obviously an issue. But beyond that? To my
mind the formulation you have that you cannot understand is the exact object
of AK, albeit without the particular phrasing of 'positive unconscious'.
> Another problem may be Foucault's loose use of terms like savior and
>connaisance. He has this habit of formulating and reformulating them again
>and again through new angles. This is extremely fruitful at times but can
be >very confusing too.
I don't find this a particular problem. I'm more struck by the continuity of
Foucault's work, at least until the very late pieces (which is one of the
issues I'm currently working on). To my mind Folie et deraison is not that
dissimilar to Surveiller et Punir for example. The explicit methodological
tools might be more overt, or may be altered by the topic reviewed, but i
think the differences of his approaches can be overexaggerated.
I think the publication of his lecture courses is going to do similar things
to what happened when Heidegger's courses were published. It is going to
radically alter our view of Foucault. Those 'silent' periods between
Foucault's major publications i.e. 1968 (or 1970) to 1975; 1976 to 1984 are
already being filled with interesting new material.
But my overall sense is that the continuities of his career will be as
striking as the discontinuities. Foucault once said that he was
characterised as a thinker of discontinuity, but he thought he uncovered
apparent discontinuities and then tried to work out how they developed into
each other. I sense the same may be true of his own thought.
An ongoing inquiry...
Stuart