FOUCAULT's genius on certain aspects of KNOWing things is UNMATCHED; and yet, it is also the case he made a SERIOUS BLUNDER TO irony the period of MOST INTEREST to the present and TURN THE PRESENT into his interestLESS version of the past.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And, what thaET\MEANSz\?\TH e end of the fools who BELIEVE in their HEARTS thaet FOUCAULT went, believe this OR NOT"LYRIC-stABLE" in his non-stop PARADA across ALL THE SENSE THAT the religious community of INDENTURED labororsz\of\the\ fifteenth\sixteenth\and\seventeenth\CENTURIES all undertook----INCLUDING mr. IMMANUEL KANT his SELF-same FUCKIN' self mahn----\the limits of these people's brains on FOUCAULTIAN foolery is the simplest thing to deconstruct; and here forthat measure are 2-TWO-ways\WAYSZZZZ!\of looking at that problem, first with regard to what FOUCAULT!sayaisz\is\the PURPOSE OF "interpretation"(p40, third paragraph is you please!all 'experts'(which is a laugh track on philosophy really these morons ALL BOUGHT their places from parental leave-making standardization of endowment-makin`.;;;;\the entire truth of KNOWLEDGE, when it comes to 'interpreting' which is whaet FOUCAULT believes it is the total of::::UNDERSTANDING(in the first MOMENTAL(\;KNOWLEDGE in the after(which is entirely UNSCRUTABLE TO ANYONE SHOULD THEY NOT COMPREHENd entirely thaet it is UNDER-standingthat one ADDRESSES their interpretation to_/^------<<<<<<(YOUr known OPINION of what I am saying goes here brethren it is ENTIRELY what FOUCAULT is describing as the DEMEANING aspect of religious life that all academics NOW PAY total LOYAL 't' to\which is the most demaning form of FEALTY? NO, tha\e\t\would be entirely much better to say because it is TRUE thaet "fealty" is appropriate in religious DISCOURSES and THAET is the lingo time-period to which FOUCAULT doesn't UNDERSTAND at the bottom of thaet page ALL RELIGIOUS 'academics' addressed themselves to which is, considered in its own right on it own propert terms, its OWN THING TO CONSIDER THE OUTCOMING potentialitieszOF----\nevertheless, it is NOT demeaning to say to ones' self "I MAKE my work FOR god's pleaseing account of my life\". FINALLY and furthermore when it comes to all this "signage" bull shittery in thaet book it is simple retardation on aVAST vast VAAAAAs\T\majority of readers thaet\it\is\taken\tomean\thaet lookin' in trees and stuff thaet signals to one is a bad idea when they'sz lookin' for a DESTINY and A FUCKIN' FATE in this world because it is also the case thaet this things are NOT SIGNS but NEW HORIZONS thaet one must figure themselves into and with regard to their possibilities nevertheless I SAY THANKS this is the true TOTAL FOUCAULDIAN policy on this planet which is::::"MAKE AN ACADEMY out of that problem just herefore mentioned so that I ALWAYS KNOW WHERE TO GO IN LIFE"(rather thaen build systems of meaning-making themselves(never SIGNIFICATIONS, period! and theat is the end here bye bye.