To The Masses (edit based on Tom's corrections and some of his suggestions )

[tectak]

most of this is quite abstract, telly, and self indulgent. There really isn't anything new or interesting here, either in the phrasing or the sentiment.

Thanks for posting.

Cheers!

milo

Hi milo,
A peripheral comment. Though I have pointed out to serge, often, that he is latterly (or perhaps has always been) self-indulgent, this is at once a virtue and a crime. I avoid going down the slippery translational route as he liberally scatters banana skins behind as he descends into his own deep meditative pit! One slip, and I am down there with him trying to find a way out. So no. My only crit is based upon the "english as she is spoken" in the hopes (often proven to be the case) that repeatedly editing away the whey will leave the cream.
Best,
tectak

You are a prince among men, as I have often stated.

No you haven't. And I suspect you suspect I have one eye
tectak

---

No doubt! ;-)


At least we are starting to get somewhere.

Background: The background to this is a poetico-poltical essay on Senghor (as I already told you earlier). Now I have just the right framework for said essay: 2 pages from an essay by Steven Blakemore ("Burke and the fall of language: the French Revolution as linguistic event." American Society for Eighteenth Century Studies. Spring 17.3 (1984):284-307), 284 - 307), esp. where Blakemore describes Burke's take on the relationship between language usage and depiction of poltical reality. There is a quintessential aphorism of Burke that he stole and transformed from Cicero's Cato Maior de Senectute: Si isti mihi largiantur ut repueriscam, et in eorum cunis vagiam, valde recusem!
He therefore refuses to think in the language of the revolutionaries, because (to quote Burke): "Their tongue betrays them. Their language is in the patois of fraud, in the cant and gibberish of hypocrisy."

Senghor - if subconsciously - seems to have taken this warning by Burke seriously, applying it to French of course, because he turned the revolutionary patois of the Négritude into finest French worthy of the Académie française. According to René Gnalega ("La pensée Senghor et la francophonie." Éthiopiques - Revue negro-africaine de litterature et de philosophie n°69. Hommage à L. S. Senghor 2ème semestre 2002"): "Nous savons que Senghor est l’un des pionniers de la Négritude. Mais nous ne pouvons pas non plus séparer le nom de Senghor de la Francophonie, tant il avait fait corps avec l’idée de francophonie en la défendant avec ferveur et foi. ... Senghor a été aux premières loges, dirons-nous, de la Francophonie."

Your critique: I will comment on your critical remarks inside your comment window quoted in this reply.
A general question (not meant sarcastically. I am just not sure.)
What is not yet your own and what gave birth to you is of course the same. Do I have to spell it out? I hope not. ;-) Though you try to convince me that there is fungibilty in these abstractions you lose your own argument by the injection of "of course". This implicitly indicates that even you consider that the equality of the two abstractions is, of course, less than obvious That is one of the niceties of the English language. It is possible to write one thing and convolutedly indicate another. As soon as I hear "of course" I hear truth on the hoof. So no, I need it spelling out to me...you have had plenty of time to work out an argument!
Best,
tectak
cheers and thank you for reading and commenting!
serge

freedom.

There, that wasn't difficult, was it? ( Of course, I knew it all along. See what I mean?)
Very Best,
tectak