But taken to its limit, this logic of redemption by displaced perception may just lead us back to the conclusion that so much does depend on the red wheelbarrow, retooled now as ad for the proposition, "No words but in words." The revolution that A. thinks will save us from the common crush of spectacular capital is a revolution of thought, bound up in an "exposure" to our common linguistic being -- this seems very much a Heideggerian kind of disclosure, effected by the agency of language itself. But Agamben's political schema is based on a can't-turn-back understanding of capitalism's advance; we canít go back to Heidegger's "vital dwelling in language," he argues, only forward (sixties slogan: "the only way out is through"), busting out of our present limbo of mediatized suspension between the everything-that-signifies and the nothingness-that-is-signified (ad-saturated common space) into a kind of radical acceptance of significance as such (the world as ad for how it is?). As you point out, the problem is that A.'s breakthrough is premised on a flattened social horizon where "linguistic belonging" is the same for everyone, where ads are universal and homogeneous in their address, where we all constitute a planetary bourgeoisie with the same stake, or lack of stake, in the system. But it's difficult to recognize present-day capitalism, however late, in this picture. A. misses -- like Baudrillard, to whom he otherwise plays sunny opposite -- capital's persistent differentiating function in constituting global codes and forms of address. So, appealingly counterintuitive as is his paen to pantyhose commercials and porn as the harbingers of a coming social body freed from the gap between image and desire, I don't see it; A.'s very concept of "whatever singularity" depends upon (even as it tries to distance itself from) the differentiating predicates that the system is invested in churning out. A's last thought, his rephrasing of Wittgenstein's "The sense of the world must lie outside the world," still reconstitutes itself within this world, not outside it. What do you think?