From: Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:05:34 -0600
Emmanoel, thanks so much for your response and the quote.
Does anyone else know of any other distinctions to place between renaissance
"representation" and the general act of representation?
And to what degree this idea still is of relevance to Foucault's later work
on power, governmental rationality and the self?
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 4:54 AM, Emmanoel B <emmanoelb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi, Chetan
> Maybe this passage from Cousins and Hussain (1984:33) might be of help:
> "Knowledge [in the classical episteme] consists in the correct ordering of
> representations. [In the Renaissance episteme]
> it had consisted in the penetration of the signs in the world in order to
> read the wisdom scattered throughout it. [In the classical episteme] i
> consists in representing identities, differences and their degrees. [In the
> Renaissance episteme] it had consisted in divination or similitiude. (...)
> Signs were placed and hidden in the world, awaiting knowledge. [In the
> classical episteme] signs are knowledge, tools of analysis and means of
> representing order. The world, not signs, awaits knowledge. The world and
> signs, things and words, are divided".
> Cousins and Hussains also observe that the ternary structure the
> characterized the mode of knowledge of Renaissance -- all the things of the
> world, words (which are special things that function as marks put upon all
> the things of the world), and the interpretation that shows how words and
> things are related. In the classical episteme, there is a binary structure
> of production of knowledge: a significant (a sing, a word) and a signified
> (the thing that the word represents).
> Hope this helps.
> 2010/2/27 Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>
> > So I was explaining the important concepts in *Les Mots et les Choses* to
> > friend who was reading it. She wanted to know how to distinguish
> > argument about the Renaissance period's unique epistemical focus on
> > "representation" from the general human cognitive ability to think in
> > of representation or symbols. I explained that representation was being
> > used
> > more in the terms of knowledge and how various signs represented
> > totalities,
> > but perhaps I oversimplified something? Because any discussion of
> > representation often involves discussion of symbols and such, which is
> > of course, so perhaps that only adds to the confusion.
> > How would any of you guys distinguish his account of the representative
> > episteme from a general human cognitive capacity to think in terms of
> > representation (which led to early art and perhaps spirituality).
> > Looking forward to your comments.
> > --
> > Chetan Vemuri
> > West Des Moines, IA
> > aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
> > (319)-512-9318
> > "You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
> > world"
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> Foucault-L mailing list
West Des Moines, IA
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the