Not so much reject, but to acknowledge that ‘going back to the source’ to find the ‘purest form’ is a habit of knowledge. We will find it very hard to delve under culture. Go to my Derrida and Writing as Language thread, it explains how we live on the outside, that the language of mathematics for example, is not most pure when we counted with sticks and stones, or whatever, it is supplementary – this means that something like the square root of minus one does not exist in real world terms at all- we have to invent rules for that to be, so mathematics as a language is in its ‘purest form’ in its most unnatural state. That’s the principle anyway.
Your explanation for the language of mathematics makes it more clearer to me what you mean. We want something that explains without adding or supplementing concepts that are not part of pure form. Yes mathematics help explain what we where doing when counting with sticks. But eventually mathematics as it was developed as a language ran into that problem of the square root of negative numbers. So it add the concept of an imaginary number to define it which is not part of the pure form.
That the same thing with essences. That it starts off fine explaining consciousness but as it is developed it runs into the same problem that mathematics did. That it invents things to make it itself work as language of consciousness. So to understand consciousness better we need acknowledge that and start over. Finding something that explains it without adding on things. That its language describes the pure form and nothing but the pure form.
.
.