MICHEL FOUCAULT, info.

Chetan,
 
I think that your interpretation --if I understand it well-- of the prominenence of Nietzsche at the self-same archeaological level --a level which thus re-inscribes all the events of the modern episteme, and as you say, melts down the differences human/social science-- is not in conflict with my point 3/. What is more, it further reinforces it. 
 
And somehow answers your own query on my clarification: yes, Foucault intervenes, and prominently so, in the (interpretation of the) birth of what at the time was going to be the 'post-modern' episteme --regardless of labels. He is a midwife in this birth. He would have been delighted that by know Man would have been dispersed from the 'post-modern mode of being'. Hence the change of emphasis away from the death of God towards the end of man. And largely, the realization of his wish depends on those who work in his wake --this being my point from the outset. 
 
Ruth Thomas-Pellicer  

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

"After Nietzsche's devastating criticism of those 'last men' who 'invented happiness,' I may leave aside altogether the naïve optimism in which science -that is, the technique of mastering life which rests upon science- has been celebrated as the way to happiness. Who believes in this? -aside from a few big children in university chairs or editorial offices." -Max Weber 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  *