Add new comment

>Cognitivist and psychodynamics theory tell a different story. The principle of reality comes before the acquisition of language, while the latter is a process spanning over a few years.

I should note -- and this is entirely my fault -- that when I use the term "language," I do not strictly refer to the definition as put towards by descriptivist linguistics. I mean language as denoted by semiotics, that is, a sign-system. All living things participate in meaning-making on some level. So yes, I concede that the acquisition of spoken language must be preceded by a concept of reality. But in semiotics, "a principle of reality" implies a rudimentary sign-system because it implies the distinction of subject and object. We also make a distinction between the Real and reality. The latter is a symbolic model or construction. The former is the actual referent.

>Or maybe you were assuming "language" in a broader sense, then okay, maybe.

Oh, nevermind. Yeah, that's what I meant. Ha.

>My true desire isn't exactly in reaching or even becoming one with this object (which in the Freudian sense means that I seek going back to my mother's womb), but to get over this subject-object binary as the dialectical resolution of this tension.

I'm confused as to how to respond to this because the deconstruction of the subject-object binary is also what I am seeking. Can you elaborate so I can see more clearly where we actually disagree?