In order to refer with certain seriousness to the work and the thought of Michel Foucault, it’s worth to try to be foucauldian and apply the same asepsy Foucault applied himself to his thought. This is not as difficult as it sounds, considering that his scriptural voice, his postures, his whirls, his dandysms, and his style in general, were never repellent to the embodiment and the incorporation of his work. But to make worth that seriousness it’s needed to read between lines and detect the locks that Foucault did to himself to make his influences iridescent. It would be needed to track mostly the voices that made up the black sun of his nietzscheanism. This tracking precises to confirm how his neatness would lead him to stop considering the beginning of his work from ‘Mental illness and Personality’. It would be needed to see how he avoided to departure from such work centring his thought since ‘The History of Madness’. Certainly, it would be needed to see how such centring was always reformulating his system each time he published a new oeuvre. Such neatness would be worth to avoid any posterity that tends to decant his work and his thought only from his influences. And one thing is that Foucault had arrived to Nietzsche through Bataille and another is that he would had embraced the bataillean Nietzsche. Foucault always knew how to shake in time his influences and always knew how to rile his ‘masters’ to extract the best of them. This is substantial to clarify Foucault’s nietzscheanism and to be a good counter-foucauldian. Continue reading →