Definition of Reality

Well then I guess I assume too much from those who read what I write. Thats what intrinsically referred to. If something has intrinsic meaning, then that meaning is necessary. Words don't have necessary meaning, their meanings are contingent upon what the speaker is trying to convey.

Whether I say something figuratively or literally I am still attempting to convey the same meaning. You seem to be implying that because I say something figuratively that it somehow makes it mean less.

Concepts can become exteriorly actualized.

Yes. And then we call them "objects".
I'm an artist. I do this all the time.

So that means that the concept of the object is no longer there simply because it is now an object?

Yes. And then we call them "objects".
I'm an artist. I do this all the time.

Yes. And then we call them "objects".
I'm an artist. I do this all the time.

If the speaker tried to convey that he had two eggs for breakfast by saying that Mars is the fourth planet, I am afraid he has not done very well, since "Mars is the fourth planet" does not convey that he had two eggs for breakfast, since it does not mean that in English. What do you think? And if that is figurative language then, yes, it does mean less than does, "I had two eggs for breakfast" if the speaker was trying to convey that. A lot less.

A concept can become an object of a different concept. For example, the concept of eggs, is theobject of the concept of the concept of eggs.

Words have meaning because of the context you use them. If you randomly say "mars is the fourth planet from the sun" then they may or may not make sense depending on the context of the situation.

If my friends and I are making a scale of the solar system using eggs, I'm sure one could imagine a possible context where it would be appropriate to convey the meaning of "eating two eggs for breakfast" by saying "mars is the 4th planet from the sun."

The key to meaning is context!

I didn't say they are different facets of a larger concept, I am saying they are the concept. There is nothing larger than being or perception or existence. They are all necessary and unconditional.

Go ahead and imagine it. The sentence, "Mars is the fourth planet" does not mean "I had two eggs for breakfast" in English. It is strange that I have to tell you that. Of course, someone might intend that sentence to mean that, as in a code. But that doesn't show it means that, does it. Intending to mean something with a sentence is very different from meaning it. It isn't up to some particular person what words mean. Words mean what fluent people collectively mean by them. The fact that I may use a sentence to convey something in a code doesn't mean that the sentence means what I intend it to mean in a code.

Go ahead and imagine it. The sentence, "Mars is the fourth planet" does not mean "I had two eggs for breakfast" in English. It is strange that I have to tell you that. Of course, someone might intend that sentence to mean that, as in a code. But that doesn't show it means that, does it. Intending to mean something with a sentence is very different from meaning it. It isn't up to some particular person what words mean. Words mean what fluent people collectively mean by them. The fact that I may use a sentence to convey something in a code doesn't mean that the sentence means what I intend it to mean in a code.

If my friend and I collectively understand the meaning of a word to be a certain way, that is in fact what gives it meaning. That is the nature of what we refer to as "inside jokes." They will not be funny to everyone because they only have a collective meaning those who understand the underlying meaning of the joke.

Would you say that because I tell someone an inside joke, that it is intrinsically not funny because not everyone who understands English will not find humor in it?

I find most of my friends inside jokes quite funny, and I don't believe that makes me unreasonable. Therefore, the meaning conveyed by the joke is contextual and not intrinsic.

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 12:24 PM ----------



Our friend Kenneth tends to be operating under the assumption of a tyranny existing over words.

Freedom for language!! :sarcastic:

...The common step is not in words but on the form in witch they relate to each other...the TAO...the WAY...:bigsmile:

What is the extent of your knowledge concerning hermeneutics? It seems to be the general theme of what you are conveying.

...Formally Basic...as in most subjects...(I peak here and there and relate)

...Most of this comes on my on thinking, and some general knowledge, plus my well visible obsession in establishing a general circular relating principle to everything through One and just One fundamental Nature...this is my drive.

Now I try to be to the best of my ability coherent top to bottom...(my poor memory is the problem most of the time, so I steak with fundamental Ideas)

...some members of this forum seem to neglect the rationality of any theorie as long it is not presented in the "proper" formal way...it saddens me...

One cannot blame them. Perspectives are a very difficult thing to change. People who are raised to believe that the world exists a certain way, no matter how irrational it may be, have a very hard time conceptualizing the mere possibility that there are other ways. It is quite frightening to them.

Therefore, all we can do is try do ease the transition as slow as possible and hope to change as many perspectives as we can along the way.