Greg Desilet Says: May 2nd, 2007 at 2:39 pm This view of Buddhism, Loy’s view of Nagarjuna, is problematic from a Derridean point of view. For Derrida there is no form of consciousness or awareness that may count as being outside the structure of the trace. This is consistent with his insistence that there is no escape from metaphysics. Forms of transcendentalism that seek to go beyond metaphysics into a “post-metaphysics” are simply delusional because in one way or another they only re-inscribe all the problems of traditional metaphysics or return us to the structure of the trace from another direction.And in the type of Buddhism expressed above there also seems to be, from a Derridean (and also neo-Nietzschean) vantage point and critique, an implicit depreciation of life, as the phenomenal/existential realm of daily lived experience. That is, there is an implicit depreciation of the life of “commonsense reality” because any metaphysics associated with that reality “makes me suffer.” For Derrida, a world or consciousness in which there is no suffering is a world and consciousness beyond any form of life or existence whatever. Everything we see in the “commonsense” kosmos such as flux, movement, change, energy, force, creation, destruction, etc. is made possible by difference (differance)—and entails suffering and also makes life possible. Why find fault with this and the metaphysics that affirms it? Instead, why not affirm “this world” and negotiate a life in it with a metaphysics that does not turn from it as if it were not worthy because of its potential for suffering?