hieroglyphs and m. foucault

and because foucault's strategy of 'confuse-'em-and-take-no-prisoners' includes some really strange opinions on the origin of language in general and the origin and properties of egyptian hieroglyphs especially, our little reading group draws a great number of different conclusions. most often, we meet in the middle though and agree that in three out of four cases foucault was either deliberatly shitting his readers or that he had no clue either and tried to hide the fact behind obscure latin terms that none other had ever used in the way he used them. so between the confusion and the confusion, i am trying to make sense of things and came up with an interpretation to foucault's understanding of hieroglyphs. i call it 'middle earth meets middle michel':