rewrite the following text in academic style. but replace all references to foucault with carl popper. change the main work in question to objective knowledge, change the rest to corresponding works of k. popper. change the name of the translator to d. If you find other translators of Karl Popper into Russian, you can also insert them in the text

As for the translation commentary, we believe it is necessary to clarify
that in Foucault the discourse is both what is created from a set of signs, and
a set of acts of formulation, a number of proposals or judgments. Discourse
is created by a set of sign sequences that represent a statement; discourse is a
set of statements that are subject to the same system of formation. At the
same time, discourse is not only a text or speech; rather, it could be said that
it is a text together with the social practice which the text refers to and which
predetermines the features of speech statements.
The discourse is created by a limited number of statements. It is historic.
It can be called a fragment of history, its unity and continuity. As Paul
Veyne noted, Foucault's discourse means "the most accurate, most concise
description of a historical formation in its purity, revealing its most individual differences," the discourse "is, in fact, what is not said and remains implicit," it "is that invisible part, that unthinkable thought, in which each
event of history acquires its identity (Veyne, 2003, p. 121).
Discourse is one of Foucault's most used words. It cannot be unequivocally translated into Russian. Where it does not have a clear terminological
meaning, it has to be translated into "speech,"-речь occasionally "reasoning.
Where it is used as a term, and the term is original and undefined — in
"Words and things" it usually refers to the language of the classical epoch
with its ability to dissect thinking notions, to express them in a sequence of
verbal signs — it has to be translated by the words — дискурс ("discourse"), 
дискурсивный ("discursive”). In Foucault's later works, the meaning of this
word further expands to cover, in essence, the whole set of structural mechanisms of superstructure, as opposed to "non-discursive" — недискурсивный economic, technical — mechanisms and regularities.
In translating Foucault's iconic term episteme, the translators N.S. Avtonomova and V.P. Vizgin used the term эпистема. P. Vizgin used three
translation tactics at once. Here we are dealing with both transliteration and
the formation of a neologism episteme adapted to Russian (according to the
analogy with the system — система). Translation commentary is also important to explain the new postmodern phenomenon.
An episteme is a historically changing structure that defines the conditions for the possibility of opinions, theories or sciences in each historical
period; a structure of thinking that expresses the way of thinking inherent in
a certain historical epoch and forms an individual order: fundamental language codes, patterns of perception, hierarchies of practices. The episteme is
a historically conditioned cultural and cognitive a priori, a set of rules and
relationships in a particular place and time, forming the conditions for the
existence of historical forms of culture and knowledge. It includes a set of
discursive practices that create the apparatus for knowledge production.
Foucault introduces the distinction between knowledge and cognition
(French savoir and connaissance, English knowledge and learning — Russian знание и познание); the level of episteme (knowledge) precedes scientific discourses (cognition) and therefore makes their existence possible:
Foucault's introduction of "archaeology" археология does not study superficial changes, but deep events. An episteme is not a body of knowledge or a
feature of the research of an epoch; it is not of universal significance, but rather is strictly limited to the discourses under study.
The underlying epistemes of hidden structures determine the order in
which "things" are embodied in "words"; the structures of discursive practices vary according to the level of organization of thought or culture. Important features of an episteme are the relationship between its elements and
synchronization. Making up a system of invisible rules, the episteme not only defines the "order of things," but also allows you to explain the emergence
of certain forms of knowledge in a particular historical period.
This observation draws attention to the approach of translators to the
transfer of Greek and Latin words to another language — there may also be
certain difficulties due to the structure of the language of translation. Thus, a
Russian translator should "look for Russian words that are morphologically
and syntactically flexible" (Avtonomova, 2008, p. 378). Therefore, the main
word-concept of Foucault's "Words and Things" epistème is translated by
N.S. Avtonomova as an episteme — эпистема.
Russian theorist of postmodernism I.P. Ilyin focuses his attention on understanding the episteme as an «implementation in speech practice of a
strictly defined code» (Ilyin, 1996, p. 60). This allows us to see the episteme
as a socio-cultural structure in which language is a structuring mechanism.
The human being in the context of such a vision is not seen as a subject.
N.S. Avtonomova interprets the episteme (эпистема) as a configuration of
an "archaeological" or cognitive field of historical character (Avtonomova,
1994, p. 20). Avtonomova also gives an understanding of the episteme as the 
latent structure of consciousness that determines the existence of individual
ideas (Avtonomova, 1972, p. 143). She pays attention to Foucault's attempt to
isolate a common structuring mechanism in all formations of consciousness
and culture. At the same time, she emphasizes that the absolutization of
Foucault at the pre-conceptual level at which he is conducting his research
limits the search for universal forms of structuring superstructure contents
to the superstructure itself. We share Avtonomova's opinion that «the broad
context of social relations of each epoch could significantly strengthen the
justification of epistemes» (Avtonomova, 1994, p. 43).
Thus, we can assume that if Foucault had had a different context for the
recognition of the "human form," he would have obtained a different form.
We think that Avtonoma's position is a confirmation of lack of heterogeneity
in Foucault's human image. In his approach to the concept of episteme V.P.
Vizgin proceeds from the main tendencies of structuralism, based on the
ideas of G. Bachelard. In this regard, the structure, as interpreted by Vizgin,
includes such concepts as "attitude" (позиция) and "field" (сфера). The focus is on the "structure of a certain social-historical field" and its various
characteristics. According to Vizgin, it is the "field" aspect of cultural history
which is expressed in the concept of episteme (Vizgin, 1996, p. 49). This interpretation of the episteme implies the analysis of history on an impersonal
level. Episteme history is the history of impersonal positions occupied by
people forced to reckon with these positions, in the same way as physics analyzes different positions of atoms. Just as quantum mechanics calculates the
energy levels that can be occupied by individual particles, in contrast to the
classical one that comes from the particle itself and its properties, so the historian describes the positions that subjects occupy under certain conditions.
According to Vizgin, the historian's goal is to create complete disposition
maps and determine their dynamics in the historical and cultural space.
In general, the idea of reality and history as something objective and really existing, gradually disappears into the consciousness, "the reality is agonizing" (Baudrillard, 2013, p. 11). "Now, when even the opposite of the real
and the unreal — this cornerstone of culture in general — is in doubt, the
soil leaves under the feet of the fantastic: one cannot undermine the credibility of what is not already trusted. Transgression is one of the key notions of
postmodernism, which fixes the phenomenon of crossing the impassable
boundary and, above all, the boundary between the possible and the impossible" (Ilyin, 1996, p. 211). The limit (i.e., the transformed reality or its border) and the transgression (qualitative transformation, expansion of reality;
unreality)," Foucault wrote, as if summing up the history of the fantastic.
Here we propose our translation "If we owe each other the density of their
being: there is no limit beyond which it is absolutely impossible to cross; on
the other hand, any transgression of the illusory or ghostly limit will be futile" (Foucault, 1966, p. 117).