>>12616864>would it be fair to say that the binary result of memory and language is what yields gaps of potentialI'd agree, if I get you correctly. In the first place the logic of language, is underpinned by a condition that at the very least creates it, or maybe even 'eludes' or 'confuses' it.
>the value that is exchanging communication with sources that can be identified as not self?The value of this is self-evident. In the first instance I talk to another to effect something, to inititate a transfer of meaning, whether that's a command, a question or an answer doesn't really matter. You aren't me, and even the normalfaggiest normalfag has to talk. "A person who needs not society is either a beast or a god," as in, you have little language, or language is of no need to you.
The issues of divergency lies not with language, as shown, but with the particular conditions to which divergency speaks. While not diagnosed with anything substantial myself I consider myself autistic in the psychoanalytic sense of the word: more englobed and enclosed to language than another. Ideas of morality, as good for its own sake, have for me have fallen to the wayside. Morality is incomprehencible to me unless it's spoken of as somewhat of a thing only reckoned with consciously, that is, as something that either impedes or furthers my personal agency. If you want a philosophical tie-in at this point, it's analogical to Stirner's negatively dialectical anti-Hegelianism: Self-recognition persists only insofar as "I" allow it, and only in those forms that I see fit.
