[As Stuart Elden points out the difference is clear from the context. Here
Foucault is drawing a difference between empirical knowledge (information
that one accumulates -connaissance) and spiritual knowledge (ie knowledge
which produces self transformation). As Stuart points out it is a rather
different characterisation from the one one finds in The Archaeology of
Knowledge.]
Without challenging the legetimacy of Stuart's differentiation bw the level
of savoir and the level of spirtualite I consider them closely related in
the sense that they both referr to what may be termed as primoridal or
fundamental transformation as against transformation that occurs within
fixed reference system (connaissance)...
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Foucault is drawing a difference between empirical knowledge (information
that one accumulates -connaissance) and spiritual knowledge (ie knowledge
which produces self transformation). As Stuart points out it is a rather
different characterisation from the one one finds in The Archaeology of
Knowledge.]
Without challenging the legetimacy of Stuart's differentiation bw the level
of savoir and the level of spirtualite I consider them closely related in
the sense that they both referr to what may be termed as primoridal or
fundamental transformation as against transformation that occurs within
fixed reference system (connaissance)...
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail