Thanks to everyone for your helped with this...
Just to recap:
“extérieures” in the sentence we have been discussing is not a misprint, but nor does it refer to noematic analysis, as I originally suggested.
Rather, it refers to the whole of the discussion undertaken in Part One, which – by way of evolution, individual history, and existence – attempted to “determine the co-ordinates by which one can situate the pathological within the interiority of personality” by showing “the forms of occurrence [d’apparition] of the illness (Mmp: 71). And it is these “forms of occurance/appearance” that Foucault is referring to when he uses the phrase “external/exterior dimension.”
However, because the analysis undertaken in Part One “have not demonstrated its [disease, illness] conditions of emergence [d’apparition]” (Mmp: 71), new forms of analysis are required to supplement the analysis undertaken in Part One of the book; analyses which attempt to describe its “exterior and objective conditions.”
Does this seem like an accurate summary of what we have been discussing?
Kind regards,
Kevin.
Just to recap:
“extérieures” in the sentence we have been discussing is not a misprint, but nor does it refer to noematic analysis, as I originally suggested.
Rather, it refers to the whole of the discussion undertaken in Part One, which – by way of evolution, individual history, and existence – attempted to “determine the co-ordinates by which one can situate the pathological within the interiority of personality” by showing “the forms of occurrence [d’apparition] of the illness (Mmp: 71). And it is these “forms of occurance/appearance” that Foucault is referring to when he uses the phrase “external/exterior dimension.”
However, because the analysis undertaken in Part One “have not demonstrated its [disease, illness] conditions of emergence [d’apparition]” (Mmp: 71), new forms of analysis are required to supplement the analysis undertaken in Part One of the book; analyses which attempt to describe its “exterior and objective conditions.”
Does this seem like an accurate summary of what we have been discussing?
Kind regards,
Kevin.