I want to Thank You so much, for this answer! Excuse
me, if I distracted You! It seems that l'enonce: a
unseen, hard to be understood non-oneness -does not
deserves great attention in your view, if one intends
to write a general boock on the most attention-worthy
parts of l'oeuvre du Foucault.
You mention that "An enonce would be something like a
formula, or a statement in a biology book, or a list
of verb forms. Enonces work within a general
discourse"
but that is not the core of the notion, that is only
its "material body", its not the part, that makes it
diffrent from the rest of the language elements.
But nevermind. I actualy wanted to ask the group, if
l'enonce have great importance in the whole work of
Foucault, or it is not great at all?
Will appreciate if i read your opinions!
Regards!
Jivko
--- Stuart Elden <stuart.elden@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have been, and continue to be, extremely busy, so
> apologies both for my
> silence and the limited nature of this response.
>
> First thing to say is that I haven't written a whole
> book about AK, but a
> discussion of it is part of the Mapping the Present
> book which does now, at
> last, seem to be available from amazon.co.uk, if not
> amazon.com yet.
>
> I don't say a great deal about enonce there, but the
> general gist of what I
> say about AK can be found in the discussion I had
> with Ali this summer.
>
> A few thoughts then -
>
> Enonce, translated as statement in AK is, I think, a
> much less grand thing
> than being is for Heidegger. Enonces would only ever
> be ontic, not
> ontological. An enonce would be something like a
> formula, or a statement in
> a biology book, or a list of verb forms. Enonces
> work within a general
> discourse. Understandings of being, in the
> Heideggerian sense, would perhaps
> be found if we looked not just at the limited
> discourse, but at the much
> wider framework which conditioned these (i.e. was
> their generalised
> condition of possibility). A historical inquiry -
> perhaps look at The Order
> of Things, and on enonce as well as AK, The Order of
> Discourse. Gary
> Gutting's Michel Foucault's Archaeology of
> Scientific Reason is one of the
> best books on this period of Foucault's work.
>
> The non-personal, anonymous aspect might be better
> thought through in
> relation to Heidegger by looking at his analysis of
> das Man in Being and
> Time. Das Man - the they, the one. How does das Man
> speak? How must 'one'
> speak? Cf Being and Time, Div I, section IV - pages
> 114 and following in the
> German pagination.
>
> This is brief and just a suggestion. Do post further
> thoughts to the list -
> I may have more time soon.
>
> Back to Lefebvre
>
> Best wishes
>
> Stuart
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com
me, if I distracted You! It seems that l'enonce: a
unseen, hard to be understood non-oneness -does not
deserves great attention in your view, if one intends
to write a general boock on the most attention-worthy
parts of l'oeuvre du Foucault.
You mention that "An enonce would be something like a
formula, or a statement in a biology book, or a list
of verb forms. Enonces work within a general
discourse"
but that is not the core of the notion, that is only
its "material body", its not the part, that makes it
diffrent from the rest of the language elements.
But nevermind. I actualy wanted to ask the group, if
l'enonce have great importance in the whole work of
Foucault, or it is not great at all?
Will appreciate if i read your opinions!
Regards!
Jivko
--- Stuart Elden <stuart.elden@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have been, and continue to be, extremely busy, so
> apologies both for my
> silence and the limited nature of this response.
>
> First thing to say is that I haven't written a whole
> book about AK, but a
> discussion of it is part of the Mapping the Present
> book which does now, at
> last, seem to be available from amazon.co.uk, if not
> amazon.com yet.
>
> I don't say a great deal about enonce there, but the
> general gist of what I
> say about AK can be found in the discussion I had
> with Ali this summer.
>
> A few thoughts then -
>
> Enonce, translated as statement in AK is, I think, a
> much less grand thing
> than being is for Heidegger. Enonces would only ever
> be ontic, not
> ontological. An enonce would be something like a
> formula, or a statement in
> a biology book, or a list of verb forms. Enonces
> work within a general
> discourse. Understandings of being, in the
> Heideggerian sense, would perhaps
> be found if we looked not just at the limited
> discourse, but at the much
> wider framework which conditioned these (i.e. was
> their generalised
> condition of possibility). A historical inquiry -
> perhaps look at The Order
> of Things, and on enonce as well as AK, The Order of
> Discourse. Gary
> Gutting's Michel Foucault's Archaeology of
> Scientific Reason is one of the
> best books on this period of Foucault's work.
>
> The non-personal, anonymous aspect might be better
> thought through in
> relation to Heidegger by looking at his analysis of
> das Man in Being and
> Time. Das Man - the they, the one. How does das Man
> speak? How must 'one'
> speak? Cf Being and Time, Div I, section IV - pages
> 114 and following in the
> German pagination.
>
> This is brief and just a suggestion. Do post further
> thoughts to the list -
> I may have more time soon.
>
> Back to Lefebvre
>
> Best wishes
>
> Stuart
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com