No problem. I was literally, straightforwardly asking the question I asked.

So re definitions, when it says "Pantheism is the belief that reality is identical with divinity, or that all-things compose an all-encompassing, immanent god," or "a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God," they really mean, "Well, just some of reality/just some parts of the universe, not all of it, but we didn't write that instead because we want to be more poetic" or something like that?

You seem to have not understood that I was literally asking you to explain the phrase "projected context."

So it's just another way of saying that there is some context, and that people usually speak in sentences, paragraphs, etc., relative to some context?

(the word "projected" seems weird to me for that, but okay, if that's all you had in mind)

It's at least a view or agenda that someone shouldn't say what they said.

Experiencing a projected context? I have no idea what that refers to. How does anyone (or anything) project a context, and just what would it consist of (physically, for example)?

So experiencing language that others utter?

Yes they are expecting potential 'experiencies'. — fresco

Experiences of concepts? "Things-in-themselves"?

The first thing I'm confused about there is what people are expecting. Do you mean expecting experiences? Of what--concepts?

So we should overthrow the capitalist system in favor of anarchy (in the sense of "no gods, no masters, no employers”)? — Echarmion

I'd overthrow the capitalist system for my own system, which isn't anarchist, but it certainly isn't capitalist, either.

I don't have a problem with all control, period. At the moment we're simply talking about certain kinds of actions in response to speech. I have a problem with that control.

I'm more or less a minarchist libertarian in many ways, but I also endorse some socialist ideas. I'm a very idiosyncratic sort of libertarian socialist.

Better to be silly than evil I'd say.

But in order for it to be "enforcement" the people doing it must be doing it to actually "enforce" something. — Echarmion

Which doesn't have to be governmental. It can just refer to control.

It's definitely a reaction to speech. That doesn't make it not control.

An alternate view is that those are social evils.

"Oh dear" oh dear.

It's "sucking dry" things like racist speech, too. It's just words. Non-speech actions would be another issue.

Well, that's what "only speech" refers to, no?

But these actions are just decisions these people make as part of their freedom of action. It's not as if they follow a government mandate. — Echarmion

The issue is controlling other people. That can easily happen outside of a governmental context. It's not as if it's okay to control people as long as it's not the government doing it officially.

Sure, as long as it's only someone saying that, yet they remain employed.

The consequences should be speech.

If it were just speech I'd be fine with it. But it's not just speech. It's other sorts of actions.

It's false that ostracization, blacklisting, jobs/careers lost, etc. are rare.

Sorry if I missed your Q about 'fact' vs truth'. My own position is that all words, including 'fact' 'truth, and 'existence' denote concepts , not 'things in themselves' which I take to be a meaningless concept. — fresco

What do you figure the concepts are about? For example, the concept "dog." You don't think that's about "things in themselves" that we're calling "dogs" but it's about what instead?

The important point for me is that the emphasis is on commonality and love and not on hatred and separation, — Janus

I'd say it's important to realize that making distinctions, noting differences, etc. doesn't equate to separation in the sense that it seems you're using that term (which seems to have value connotations related to isolation, inability to interact, loneliness, despair, etc.), and it certainly doesn't equate to hatred. It's important to be cognizant of distinctions and differences, otherwise you might put your socks in the toaster--and wind up burning down your house, or you might search for your lost car keys in the forest even though you haven't been in the forest since you last had your keys. Noting that meaning isn't everywhere, that it's only in/of minds, that minds aren't everywhere, etc. is simply making the same sorts of distinctions that we make between bread and socks, between one being in the pantry and the other in a dresser, etc.

The writing of a ten year old is more advanced than a six year old. This develops until a degree of sophistication is reached that is determined by everyone around us. If it can’t be read and understood then it fails in intent. — Brett

How does that wind up making anything nonsubjective when it comes to judgments? We can note objective differences in the writing--for example, comparing "Jack ran" to "Jack sprightly sprinted through the spruce forest." One objectively has more words, more types of words, one has alliteration, etc., and we can call one more sophisticated, though especially as something with a normative or evaluative connotation, calling something more sophisticated just because it has more words, etc. is itself subjective. But also saying that "more/ less sophisticated writing is better" is subjective.

It seems like maybe you're appealing a bit to consensus, at least a consensus of people considered "experts" (by another consensus), but that would simply be an argumentum ad populum for claims of objectivity that aren't simply and explicitly claims about what the consensus is.

Jobs/careers lost, ostracization, black listing, etc.

As a matter of interest, of your 9000 or so posts here, how many of them are negative ?:smile: — fresco

Probably not much more than a handful--definitely less than 10. I don't know if any would remain/not be deleted. Usually if you're just insulting someone or whatever it gets deleted.

If you're instead referring to critical posts, probably all of them are. We're supposed to be more or less doing philosophy here. You can't do that non-critically. Part of your responsibility in taking part is being able to defend claims against critical challenges.

What you are trying to do is like arguing whether photons really exist. — ernestm

I thought I was asking you a question.

Maybe models do have something to do with what the actual world is like, and maybe they don't. They are only models. — ernestm

So now we don't know whether they do or not?

What I was asking you was to explain the notion that models have nothing to do with what the actual world is like, yet they somehow enable predictions about the actual world. How would that work?

absence of pain for the non-existent is good — darthbarracuda

To whom? Good/bad have to be to someone. They're the way that someone feels about the situation in question.

By the same token, re "absence of pleasure for the non-existent is not-bad," that's not necessarily the case. It depends on whose opinion we're referring to.

So now you're going to explain how it would enable a prediction of an event if it's just any arbitrary thing we're making up?

That's what I asked because it's what I hoped you'd answer.

A model defines relationships between concepts, which enable predictions of events. — ernestm

How would it enable a prediction of an event if it's just any arbitrary thing we're making up?

At the very least it can be judged by how easily the reader understands what the writer is saying. I don’t think this is a subjective, or based on likes or dislikes, — Brett

?? How would understanding not be something dependent on mentality?

no a second time, it is one step above claim, — ernestm

"One step above claim"--what in the world would that refer to?

Aren't assertions or propositions claims about things?

No, that is Anaximander's first proposition, or assertion, in his model of how the universe that we experience derives, or fits within, the boundless, called the 'Apeiron.' — ernestm

That's not not an empirical claim for that. It's an empirical claim.

You've got that disease where you can't keep your responses brief, by the way.

Also, if "model" is just "anything we make up," where it's not supposed to have any correspondence to anything else (which makes it curious as a "model" per conventional usage of that term), then what in the world would make any model more "complete" than another? The idea of completeness would be incoherent in that case.

chaos and order emerged to fight with each other, — ernestm

"Chaos and order emerged to fight with each other" is an empirical statement, isn't it?

If "complete" means "incorrect," okay.

Two cells are not identical to one cell. — SophistiCat

Yeah, two anythings are not identical. I'm a nominalist.

You're not denying cell division are you?

So you're using "meaning" strictly in the "(life's) purpose" sense.

Don't you think that some individuals have purposes that they've assigned themselves? For example, Joe's life's purpose might be to spend at least three weeks in every country. Jane's life's purpose might be to write two novels per year, etc. Alice's life's purpose might be to have kids and devote her life to them. It could be anything, really. (Granted that these are simplified, though--people usually have multiple, or at least multifaceted purposes if they have them.)

If those folks have assigned purposes to themselves, then there are purposes, no?

B-b-b-b-ut I can't make tasteless jokes anymore and that's the most important thing!
— StreetlightX

Indeed! — Izat So

How the "can't" is effectively enforced is what matters there, and it affects a whole lot more people than murders committed by terrorists.