You see so I think, it is exploited (certainly with happiness more or less!) that irreducible and permanent game that exists between the language of which we have the Faculty and that sometimes baptize comfortably as the real thing. I remind, that the game of which I come from talk to them may be more or less important. In this game you can call it is maximum until we can bend the world to say with words what we have to tell him. It is at least until we get our words to bend to that same world to which we are going to say something. In one case, this dialog will have the manner of Raymond Devos:-the sea is stormy because well you have to soothe it!, in the other case we will discuss acid nitric, sulfuric, or clorideo, for example, formulations that try to fit as much as possible to what we think is reality.
In other words, the investment that we make for the real thing. The verbal structure is engulfed the two antagonistic visions that you know well: the mink that Jean Gagnepain called, the mythical one and the other, scientific, as you can see, that myth and science are also rational both one and the other, to the extent that arise both from the same Faculty of conceiving, other words that are the product of the same processthat is the same verbal rationality. If support that model mediator of verbal rationality, which I have just delineate quickly, important questions will receive a beginning of answer, starting with the famous question of purported animal language. In recent days I have seen in a very big city library a book published recently that he was exposed to the public eye and whose title caught my attention: do animals think?. I don’t need to tell you that I do not even ojee the book.