Hi
,
> Whether you intuitively know that a phrase has meaning (e.g. the native
> speaker of English) or find out by analysis (e.g. an archeologist), what
> already makes the phrase meaningfull, is the enouce. Your acquaintance
> with the enonce is the ultimate reference for meaningfullness.
First analysis does not refer to the archeological practice, but to logical
analysis (Foucault is here refering to Frege, Russell, and the Vienna
circle). Then, something like a ''native speaker of english'' is one of
many possible subjective position an énoncé permits, the one linguistic
accept as true. Meaning is always, it seems, found in such a choice, that's
why the meaning of an énoncé will be different if you analyse it as a
logical propoposition, or intuit it as a meaningfull phrase. The énoncé, in
itself, is a fonction of existence, and is ''meaning neutral'' - a meaning
being given to it by the usage in which it is employed.
This neutrality is important, it is what will permit, in chapter IV, to
explain how an énoncé can ''jump'' from one discursive system to another,
thus changing meaning, and that this new meaning is not to be understood as
neither as a historical purification of a ''pure'', primitive meaning, nor
as the march toward an horizon of ideality (refering again to romantic
hermeneutics - this is a critique of post-hegelian theory in history of
Idea, targetting a Gadamer or a Ricoeur).
Therefore, the archeological analysis is a way to come closer to the
> meaning to historical texts by unravelling the enoncial premises of that
> time, avoiding present enoncial premises, e.g. backward interpretation
> of scientific progress.
But there is nothing, if you accept to play the archeological game, as ''the
meaning'' you can get ''closer to'' !
"[L'archéologie] ne prétend pas s'effacer elle-même dans la modestie ambiguë
d'une lecture qui laisserait revenir, en sa pureté, la lumière lointaine,
précaire, presque effacée de l'origine. Ele n'est rien de plus et rien
d'autre qu'une réécriture : c'est-à-dire dans la forme maintenue de
l'extériorité, une transformation réglée de ce qui a été déjà écrit. Ce
n'est pas le retour au secret même de l'origine; c'est la description
systématique d'un discours-objet.'' (AS, 183)
Not the search of an original meaning, but the transformation and
description of a discourse-object, I dont see a pretention to ''unravel''
something, quite the contrary !
Regards,
Jean-François
,
> Whether you intuitively know that a phrase has meaning (e.g. the native
> speaker of English) or find out by analysis (e.g. an archeologist), what
> already makes the phrase meaningfull, is the enouce. Your acquaintance
> with the enonce is the ultimate reference for meaningfullness.
First analysis does not refer to the archeological practice, but to logical
analysis (Foucault is here refering to Frege, Russell, and the Vienna
circle). Then, something like a ''native speaker of english'' is one of
many possible subjective position an énoncé permits, the one linguistic
accept as true. Meaning is always, it seems, found in such a choice, that's
why the meaning of an énoncé will be different if you analyse it as a
logical propoposition, or intuit it as a meaningfull phrase. The énoncé, in
itself, is a fonction of existence, and is ''meaning neutral'' - a meaning
being given to it by the usage in which it is employed.
This neutrality is important, it is what will permit, in chapter IV, to
explain how an énoncé can ''jump'' from one discursive system to another,
thus changing meaning, and that this new meaning is not to be understood as
neither as a historical purification of a ''pure'', primitive meaning, nor
as the march toward an horizon of ideality (refering again to romantic
hermeneutics - this is a critique of post-hegelian theory in history of
Idea, targetting a Gadamer or a Ricoeur).
Therefore, the archeological analysis is a way to come closer to the
> meaning to historical texts by unravelling the enoncial premises of that
> time, avoiding present enoncial premises, e.g. backward interpretation
> of scientific progress.
But there is nothing, if you accept to play the archeological game, as ''the
meaning'' you can get ''closer to'' !
"[L'archéologie] ne prétend pas s'effacer elle-même dans la modestie ambiguë
d'une lecture qui laisserait revenir, en sa pureté, la lumière lointaine,
précaire, presque effacée de l'origine. Ele n'est rien de plus et rien
d'autre qu'une réécriture : c'est-à-dire dans la forme maintenue de
l'extériorité, une transformation réglée de ce qui a été déjà écrit. Ce
n'est pas le retour au secret même de l'origine; c'est la description
systématique d'un discours-objet.'' (AS, 183)
Not the search of an original meaning, but the transformation and
description of a discourse-object, I dont see a pretention to ''unravel''
something, quite the contrary !
Regards,
Jean-François