Hi Alasdair
Thankyou, what you have said makes sesnse as you have explained it, however in thaat sense then, as a discussion, why in that sentence are 'need's a representation of its own representation yet the other two examples he uses here ARE representations of something else.
I understand the sense of the distinction in Foucault's thought but why within this sentence is there a discrepancy?
Hi Anthony
Mea culpa. That is my typo. Sorry.
Thankyou though both of you.
all the best
Alastair
Thankyou, what you have said makes sesnse as you have explained it, however in thaat sense then, as a discussion, why in that sentence are 'need's a representation of its own representation yet the other two examples he uses here ARE representations of something else.
I understand the sense of the distinction in Foucault's thought but why within this sentence is there a discrepancy?
Hi Anthony
Mea culpa. That is my typo. Sorry.
Thankyou though both of you.
all the best
Alastair