Today I will begin with a definition of the language as place of dialectical contradiction of appropriation and linguistic exchange, aiming to mark the complete change of perspective that makes us very well, as game input, missing operate talking about what I said when I tried to answer the question what is thinking?. We had, in effect, analysis of what, in the language relieves certain (fully implicit) cognitive processes we have studied what, in, relieves it entirely of sociology, i.e. of the permanent (and completely implicit) contradiction of divergence and convergence (which, by bad luck, you know very well) constituent of the person. And therefore, the anthropology of Jean Gagnepain proved that the two plans of rationality (rationality verbal and social rationality) were clinically, entirely autonomous. I’ll begin by illustrating this dialectic opposition on the basis of the existence of languages.
Remember: do, said them, all balloon dolphins speak the delfiniano, if we cannot say that all men speak the antroninano? Simply because as the other animals – dolphins seek to communicate with each other, instead what characterizes the man, it is precisely the rejection of what we call, in ordinary language the communication! It is necessary to understand, in fact, that there is no man from the moment in which this says to the other: I am not you, that is, you know, we started by making a hole to support us ourselves and our neighbour, pit that it makes us very much, then fill, under penalty of being condemned to the idiom, in the etymological sense of the term (the idiots(, in ancient Greek, are those who remain locked up in its uniqueness). In other words makes us always translate, translation that it is necessary to have the entire actual communication model. That means that if they admit this dialectic opposition of divergence and convergence, we can call it a language? We are not going to find another example.