That seems like an accurate summary of how I was suggesting
reading it.
You remark:
> “extérieures” in the sentence we have
> been discussing is not a misprint, but
> nor does it refer to noematic analysis,
> as I originally suggested.
It's interesting.
This "misprint" advocates seem to suggest
that what is measured along the dimensions
in question is the generalized shape
of the subjective experience of the subjects
in question.
Your clever initial reading was more conservative
and said that "exterior dimensions" referred
to the subjective "coordinate system" that the
subjects in question impose on the world.
What seems right, though, is that he much more
simply meant the dimensions by which we measure
the objective presentation of a mentally-ill
patient.
It's damn subtle.
Regards,
-t
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 23:41 -0800, Kevin Turner wrote:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
reading it.
You remark:
> “extérieures” in the sentence we have
> been discussing is not a misprint, but
> nor does it refer to noematic analysis,
> as I originally suggested.
It's interesting.
This "misprint" advocates seem to suggest
that what is measured along the dimensions
in question is the generalized shape
of the subjective experience of the subjects
in question.
Your clever initial reading was more conservative
and said that "exterior dimensions" referred
to the subjective "coordinate system" that the
subjects in question impose on the world.
What seems right, though, is that he much more
simply meant the dimensions by which we measure
the objective presentation of a mentally-ill
patient.
It's damn subtle.
Regards,
-t
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 23:41 -0800, Kevin Turner wrote:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list