I love the way this language game has played itself
out. I would add absolutely nothing except a question:
Alex, where, in particular, do you locate the problem
in the dialectic set up by the contra-distinction
between structure and action, langue and parole,
savoir and connaissance, general and particular in
foucaults discourse? What, in general, is problematic
about contra-diction in foucaults language? (the
express difficulty I am apparantly having in
paraphrasing what you have said is indicative of the
problem I am having with it; if you would like to
elaborate on what you refered to in passing I would
like only to give you the opportunity to do so).
Perhaps foucaults 'distrust of dualism', as you put
it, can be sumurised as follows: contradictions
consists- and subsist- in complementary pairs (to
paraphrase Aristotle).
note: in 'mental illness and psychology' foucault
spoke about spaces closed against contradiction and
spaces open to them; the context in which he deployed
this contradistinction was the same as that in which
the theme of 'serene/uncompromising/absolute division'
found its locus of expression in 'madness and
civilization' (especially in the introduction he
rewrote for it and in the chapter titled 'passion and
delirium': on one side of this division is placed the
man of reason and on the other the madman... The
related themes of 'mirror interrogation' and
'recognition in a mirror' certainly find the locus of
their deployment around here also...)
--- Alexandre Beliaev <alexandre_beliaev@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Machiel, Kevin:
>
> Here's another question with respect to the
> distinction between savoir and connaissance:
>
> I feel that the distinction between
> savoir/connaissance is quite similar to a
> distinction
> between langue/parole (in linguistics) and
> structure/practice (in soc. sciences). Do you agree
> /
> disagree? And, if you agree, isn't this parallelism
> -
> which suggests a particular kind of a dualistic
> tension between savoir and connaissance -
> problematic,
> given Foucault's distrust of dualistic thinking
> (which, for me, is very strongly articulated in
> 'History of Sexuality')?
>
> With thanks for your time,
>
> Alex.
>
> --- machiel karskens <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > In L'archéologie du savoir on page 236 'savoir is
> > called : "l'état des
> > connaissances" at a given moment; so
> "connaissance"
> > is positive knowledge on
> > a given topic or in a given discipline; "savoir"
> is
> > the field of knowledge
> > or discursive formation at that moment, which
> makes
> > this positive knowledge
> > possible.
> >
> > yours
> > machiel karskens
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Foucault List" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 3:12 PM
> > Subject: [Foucault-L] savoir - connaissance
> >
> >
> > > In "The Archaeology of Knowledge" Sheridan Smith
> > makes the following
> > observation on the relation between savoir and
> > connaissance:
> > >
> > > 'Connaissance refers...to a particular corpus of
> > knowledge, a particular
> > discipline â?? biology or economics, for example.
> > Savoir, which is usually
> > defined as knowledge in general, to totality of
> > connaissance, is used by
> > Foucault in an underlying, rather than an overall,
> > way. He has himself
> > offered the following comment on his usage of
> these
> > terms: â??By connaissance
> > I mean the relation of the subject to the object
> and
> > the formal rules that
> > govern it. Savoir refers to the conditions that
> are
> > necessary in a
> > particular period for this or that type of object
> to
> > be given to
> > connaissance and for this or that type of
> > enunciation to be formulatedâ??'(AK:
> > 15n2).
> > >
> > > The problem is, Sheridan Smith does not give a
> > reference for Foucault's
> > comments: does anybody know where Foucault
> > originally made this statement?
> > >
> > > Regards - Kevin.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________
> > > Free 2GB Email - Online Storage, Effective Spam
> > Protection, Calendar &
> > more!
> > > Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out
> more!
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
out. I would add absolutely nothing except a question:
Alex, where, in particular, do you locate the problem
in the dialectic set up by the contra-distinction
between structure and action, langue and parole,
savoir and connaissance, general and particular in
foucaults discourse? What, in general, is problematic
about contra-diction in foucaults language? (the
express difficulty I am apparantly having in
paraphrasing what you have said is indicative of the
problem I am having with it; if you would like to
elaborate on what you refered to in passing I would
like only to give you the opportunity to do so).
Perhaps foucaults 'distrust of dualism', as you put
it, can be sumurised as follows: contradictions
consists- and subsist- in complementary pairs (to
paraphrase Aristotle).
note: in 'mental illness and psychology' foucault
spoke about spaces closed against contradiction and
spaces open to them; the context in which he deployed
this contradistinction was the same as that in which
the theme of 'serene/uncompromising/absolute division'
found its locus of expression in 'madness and
civilization' (especially in the introduction he
rewrote for it and in the chapter titled 'passion and
delirium': on one side of this division is placed the
man of reason and on the other the madman... The
related themes of 'mirror interrogation' and
'recognition in a mirror' certainly find the locus of
their deployment around here also...)
--- Alexandre Beliaev <alexandre_beliaev@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Machiel, Kevin:
>
> Here's another question with respect to the
> distinction between savoir and connaissance:
>
> I feel that the distinction between
> savoir/connaissance is quite similar to a
> distinction
> between langue/parole (in linguistics) and
> structure/practice (in soc. sciences). Do you agree
> /
> disagree? And, if you agree, isn't this parallelism
> -
> which suggests a particular kind of a dualistic
> tension between savoir and connaissance -
> problematic,
> given Foucault's distrust of dualistic thinking
> (which, for me, is very strongly articulated in
> 'History of Sexuality')?
>
> With thanks for your time,
>
> Alex.
>
> --- machiel karskens <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > In L'archéologie du savoir on page 236 'savoir is
> > called : "l'état des
> > connaissances" at a given moment; so
> "connaissance"
> > is positive knowledge on
> > a given topic or in a given discipline; "savoir"
> is
> > the field of knowledge
> > or discursive formation at that moment, which
> makes
> > this positive knowledge
> > possible.
> >
> > yours
> > machiel karskens
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Foucault List" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 3:12 PM
> > Subject: [Foucault-L] savoir - connaissance
> >
> >
> > > In "The Archaeology of Knowledge" Sheridan Smith
> > makes the following
> > observation on the relation between savoir and
> > connaissance:
> > >
> > > 'Connaissance refers...to a particular corpus of
> > knowledge, a particular
> > discipline â?? biology or economics, for example.
> > Savoir, which is usually
> > defined as knowledge in general, to totality of
> > connaissance, is used by
> > Foucault in an underlying, rather than an overall,
> > way. He has himself
> > offered the following comment on his usage of
> these
> > terms: â??By connaissance
> > I mean the relation of the subject to the object
> and
> > the formal rules that
> > govern it. Savoir refers to the conditions that
> are
> > necessary in a
> > particular period for this or that type of object
> to
> > be given to
> > connaissance and for this or that type of
> > enunciation to be formulatedâ??'(AK:
> > 15n2).
> > >
> > > The problem is, Sheridan Smith does not give a
> > reference for Foucault's
> > comments: does anybody know where Foucault
> > originally made this statement?
> > >
> > > Regards - Kevin.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________
> > > Free 2GB Email - Online Storage, Effective Spam
> > Protection, Calendar &
> > more!
> > > Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out
> more!
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com