Jivko
You've lost me. I don't follow the logic of your last posts.
>but it is certain , that knowledge is not that kind of
weapon in the world outside this one where they speak
in english, and knowledgeis not only a weapon, we must
addmit(and is not the only weapon).
Given that this was a discussion of a passage i referred back to the
original French this makes no sense to me. The final two suggestions are
fine, but don't really add or challenge anything.
>Well, lets see ...who didnt read the book:-)))
In a place, which a cannot point right now, he sais
that this book is not theory, i.e. it does not have
deductive form, and in that moment the book is not
grown enough to become theory. So, a friend of mine
told me :"wait,this is archeaology, its not theory-
because the archeologist have his hands dirty, and the
theorist dont"
So, this rests on a particular definition of theory. First how you report
Foucault frames it, then the model you take from your friend. I remember
something similar to what you say F says, but i also could point to places
where he does describe it as theory. Asking you for a reference to
substantiate a claim is fair enough, surely?
>But there is a certain theory in that book:exactly,
the theory of l'enonces, and another part, which is
not exactly theory.
I'd like you to spell this out, with references if possible.
As I said, i don't have a problem with theory. I have problems with how some
people define theory, like if theory had to be deductive, or theory means
not having your hands dirty, then i probably wouldn't be doing theory.
>Derrida is here, as i mentioned - and is all the time
logo(locu)centrism springing from everyone in the
conference.
So thats why i think that the west is logocentric, and
the rest of the world is not so logocentric. For
example we , Bulgarians, we are more musical.
I think others on the list have challenged these generalisations before...
Stuart
You've lost me. I don't follow the logic of your last posts.
>but it is certain , that knowledge is not that kind of
weapon in the world outside this one where they speak
in english, and knowledgeis not only a weapon, we must
addmit(and is not the only weapon).
Given that this was a discussion of a passage i referred back to the
original French this makes no sense to me. The final two suggestions are
fine, but don't really add or challenge anything.
>Well, lets see ...who didnt read the book:-)))
In a place, which a cannot point right now, he sais
that this book is not theory, i.e. it does not have
deductive form, and in that moment the book is not
grown enough to become theory. So, a friend of mine
told me :"wait,this is archeaology, its not theory-
because the archeologist have his hands dirty, and the
theorist dont"
So, this rests on a particular definition of theory. First how you report
Foucault frames it, then the model you take from your friend. I remember
something similar to what you say F says, but i also could point to places
where he does describe it as theory. Asking you for a reference to
substantiate a claim is fair enough, surely?
>But there is a certain theory in that book:exactly,
the theory of l'enonces, and another part, which is
not exactly theory.
I'd like you to spell this out, with references if possible.
As I said, i don't have a problem with theory. I have problems with how some
people define theory, like if theory had to be deductive, or theory means
not having your hands dirty, then i probably wouldn't be doing theory.
>Derrida is here, as i mentioned - and is all the time
logo(locu)centrism springing from everyone in the
conference.
So thats why i think that the west is logocentric, and
the rest of the world is not so logocentric. For
example we , Bulgarians, we are more musical.
I think others on the list have challenged these generalisations before...
Stuart