I trust more Bertrand Russell than Derrida, Benveniste than Baudrillard, and I am afraid Baudrillard is what he claims he exposes: he is simulacrum of philosophy in some effete rejection of money, credit cards and other simulacra of value, and he forgets to tell us how much of this simulacrum of value we call money or currency, in his case euros, he cashes and spends every month. I guess these philosophers’ hearts bleed tremendously for us the poor of this earth. As Russell would say (a long time ago in the US) sensation is nothing if it does not become perception and that’s only the first two steps of consciousness. I always think of this old Chinese or Buddhist proverbs: “When the master shows the moon, the good students looks at the moon and the bad students look at the finger.” Master-good student-bad student. That makes three. Plus the finger and the moon that makes five. and the proverb does not take into account the movement of the arm pointing at the moon because we are dealing here with Chinese language which is an isolating language for which all items are always captured in their stillness and the only dynamism comes from the topographic relations between the many items. This suspended dynamic stillness is so much more interesting than the good old dual thinking of so many Marx. As Whitman used to say: “I am wide enough to contain a contradiction.”
“Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself;
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)”
Is it Whitman’s “Song of Myself”? I guess so. I spent months perusing Leaves of Grass in Davis California looking for “the concept of the mother in Leaves of Grass” and I only found sound uncertainty and strong escape from anything predefined and yet he reconstructed the absent concept of the father in Lincoln after his death, Lincoln’s death.