Foucault, Archaeology of Knowledge, selections

We began, as per the usual custom of our little group, with questions:
 * Can Foucault escape the subject and subjectivity, as he seems to want?  Is this attempt at getting out from under the shadow of the subject (the transc. subject) compromised if we put archaeology into reflexive relation with itself?
 * What is a 'system of disperson' (p. 37)?  How does it differ from other conceptions, e.g., from 'difference'?
 * Why abandon the term 'archaeology'?  What is at stake in an 'archaeology of sexuality' (192)?
 * Why the need for an account of unity?
 * What is at stake in the conception of 'practice' in AK that we don't find in OT?  (see p. 49)
 * Four thresholds of positivity, epistemologization, scientization, and formalization.  Is this itself a formalization?  Are these useful?  What is the value or gain of a use of a 'scientific' language in the context of a critique of science?

Discussion then ensued...

How is archaeology able to account for itself?  What is archaeology trying to account for?  What is the status of archaeology as a critique?  What is archaeology's relationship to its object of critique?

How does archaeology express a principle of constraint/selection?  MF starts (in Ch. 2) with four hypotheses: object, style, concept, theme.  Explanation rather happens by way of "forms of division" and "systems of dispersion" (37)?  How do "forms of division" and "dispersions" at the level of savoir give rise to stability or unity of connaissance?  One key to the depth savoir is that it itself is not unified (as object, style, concept, theme).  Rather, "dispersion" (38) is c-o-p of "regularity".

Questions to track as we move forward:
 * Move from archaeology to knowledge.
 * Account of unity without appeal to transcendental subject without dialectical teleology