When a nobel author claims to be the best

That all is like a more internal-based Aristotle with some Jung, Nietzsche and Chomsky's work on lingustics involved. Reads rather like Aristotle too.

What are your thoughts on the critique of Saussurian linguistics (which is what you seem to be using as a base) by Steven Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels? If you can have things understood for language, but which is not originally intended as language, then does that have any meaning outside of a subjective experience? If it is all subjective, I don't see your thought process behind the spheres and pillars and modules - which all imply some form of objectivity, at least objectivity in the sense of something agreed either between people or between the person and himself.

 

I have my own ideas regarding Saussure: he was some sort of Freud in his own right, if you get my meaning.

I am not familiar with that particular critique. I followed your link and it only gave me access to the first page. Nevertheless, I got the feeling that they were using Saussure's already debunked approach to linguistics to show how a theory that accurately or closely explains any given phenomena is not necesarily a reflect of reality.

Since I am not familiar with the critique, I need you to tell me if my assumption is correct, so I can go on or stop. If I got it wrong, please explain what that critique is all about so I can offer you a propper response.

It is refreshing to see you're familiar with linguistics, psychology and philosphy, by the way. Your conflating is, however, incorrect. Whatever made you suspect my work is based on Aristotle, Jung, Nietzsche and/or Chomsky is misleading, so please let me know about it.

 

Gentlemen, at this point I will ask both of you to take this to PM. This thread is turning into a presentational forum for the work in question, which is an issue on two counts since this is the incorrect area for this and because the forum's rules for critique have not been met.