II, 224ff
Comparisons/Foucault:
Archeology: works with a variety of registers. Always in the plural, runs through spaces and distances. Not the same calendar.
Comparison: a comparison is always limited and regional. It does not make any general forms appear.
Cf. >
Similarity, >
Comparability, >
Generality, >
Form.
False: it would be utterly wrong to say that in the various fields of the attribution of the classification of the designation and derivation, the whole taxi could be found shaped alike only in geometry, mechanics, physiology, or biblical criticism. Then I would not have described an area of interpositivity, but the spirit or the science of an epoch which I just did not want.
Relationships/Foucault: the relationships that I have described apply to define a particular configuration. There are no signs to describe the face of a culture in its totality. It is not about description of an ideology: what the gap is there, forgetting, error, is for me conscious and methodological exclusion.
Commonality: it is not about commonalities. In the determination of analogies are five different tasks:
1. to show how completely different discursive elements can be formed from analogous rules.
2. to what extent these rules are applied in the same way or do not. (To define the archaeological model of each formation).
3. to show how completely different terms (e.g. value, specific feature, price, or generic feature) occupy an analogous position in the branching of their system.
4. to show how the same term can cover archaeological different elements (the concepts of origin and evolution).
5. Subordination or complementarity relations from one positivity to another.
Commonality: nothing in all these descriptions is based on the determination of influences, exchange, transmitted information and communication. Behind positivity is not an opera of neighboring disciplines. It is the law of their communications. ((s) after all: exchange of information).
Archeology: also reveals the relationships between discursive information and non-discursive areas (institutions, political events, economic practices and processes). But it is not about cultural continuities. Also not about causal analysis (how political changes influenced the consciousness).
Archeology: search for formal analogies and transmissions of meaning e.g. it is not how political practice has determined the meaning of medical discourse, but how and in what capacity it belongs to the conditions of its emergence, and its functioning. Political practice has not, of course, imposed new objects on medicine, but has opened up new fields of marking for the objects.
>
Order, >
Analogies.
