We began the year, as we always do, with questions...
1a. Clarification of the concept of "table" and its place in the episteme of Order (cf. 217).
1b. Clarification of notions of historicity and its place in the episteme History (cf. 259).
2. Clarification of Foucault's concept of "event" (cf. 217), "archaeology, however, must examine each event" (218).
3. How or why do discourses/epistemes undergo mutation; contrast Marxism which "introduced no real discontinuity" (cf. 261).
4. Relation of History to economics (cf. 219).
5. What does Nietzsche represent for Foucault at the end of the discussion (cf. 263)? Are we still, as of 1966, within the 19th century episteme? Or beyond it?
6. How would/should we characterize archaeology? Where is archaeology in all of this?
Then discussion ensued...
Archaeology is the study of depth conditions for rules of knowledge within a certain episteme.
Depth conditions make sense of "surface" knowledge (connaissance) in terms of depth conditions of knowledge (savoir). This depth is a "positive unconscious".
Depth conditions = "Order and Representation" versus "History"
Study of depth conditions = archaeology.
Smith versus Ricardo. Smiths's analysis of the growth of wealth versus Ricardo's overt labor theory of value.
