Existence is attributed to things merely experienced. Making any distinction/correlation , linguistic or nonlinguistic, is predicated on the pressupossition of existence. — Merkwurdichliebe

There is no such thing as non linguistic predication...

I'm seriously re-thinking how to parse that bit. "All correlation presupposes it's own content" does what it needs to do, for now.

Only directly perceptible things can be the content of non linguistic thought/belief. — creativesoul

And what happens when something that is thought to be directly perceptible is not perceived? Then there is the thought that it does not exist (perceptually). It is easy to see how existence factors into nonlinguistic thought...As I said:

One without language can have existence in mind in any number of ways without ever having used the term "existence" simply by drawing a correlation between the existent and other things that may or may not exist. — Merkwurdichliebe

Existence is attributed to things merely experienced. Making any distinction/correlation , linguistic or nonlinguistic, is predicated on the pressupossition of existence. So it it rather illogical to say that existence does not factor into thought prior to language acquisition.

I hope you can convince me otherwise. — Merkwurdichliebe

If the entire history of language use including the term "existence" is not enough to prove that we name and think of things long before thinking about them in terms of their existence, then nothing else I could argue would hold more clout.

predication — creativesoul

Does correlation require predication?

And what happens when something that is thought to be directly perceptible is not perceived? Then there is the thought that it does not exist (perceptually). It is easy to see how existence factors into nonlinguistic thought... — Merkwurdichliebe

Thinking that something is directly perceptible requires thinking in those terms. Those terms require already having picked something out to think about in terms of whether or not it qualifies as being directly perceptible or not. All thinking in terms requires language. Non linguistic thought has none.

:brow:

predication
— creativesoul

Does correlation require predication? — Merkwurdichliebe

No. It is quite the reverse. All predication is correlation. Not all correlation is predication.

Thinking that something is directly perceptible requires thinking in those terms. Those terms require already having picked something out to think about in terms of whether or not it is directly perceptible. — creativesoul

Not when making nonlinguistic correlations.

Thinking that something is directly perceptible requires thinking in those terms. Those terms require already having picked something out to think about in terms of whether or not it is directly perceptible.
— creativesoul

Not when making nonlinguistic correlations. — Merkwurdichliebe

Think/believe what you like. Gratuitous assertions are inadequate on my view.

I've been defending everything I've said without subsequent valid objection aside from the "presupposing the existence of it's own content"...

That, I think, can be maintained by careful ad hoc.

Gratuitous assertions are inadequate on my view. — creativesoul

Like:

The existent is not existence. — creativesoul

I agree.

That, I think, can be maintained by careful ad hoc. — creativesoul

Anything reasonable can be maintained by careful ad Hoc. That is why all knowledge is relative.

If you cannot tell the difference between existence and an existent, then there's not much I can do here.

All things thought, believed, spoken, written, and/or otherwise uttered are relative in a specific sense. Meaning is relative.

If you cannot tell the difference between existence and an existent, then there's not much I can do here. — creativesoul

Just tell us. Not everyone is as clever enough to distinguish them as you.

Not interested. Are there any other frameworks you'd like to compare/contrast? What are we up to now? How many different times have you changed your terminological use? May be part of the problem here, if you're genuinely having trouble understanding what I've been arguing.

Not interested. Are there any other frameworks you'd like to compare/contrast? — creativesoul

Any and all. I'm a philosopher. I have nothing to prove, and nothing else to offer but speaking all my opinions clearly and directly.

@fresco is correct. As far as it concerns us existence is relative.

It's both. The difference lies with 'to'.

" Then maybe you can help me to get my point across. Existence is present at all levels of thought, linguistic or nonlinguistic"

Sorry, but for me ' existence' is merely a word like any other whose meaning/import is embedded in its context of usage, therefore I cannot argue for its non linguistic viability. The non philosophical contexts of its usage involve disputes about 'utility', which for the purposes of naive realistic posturing replace utility with the word 'existence' instead as though the disputed concept were independent of an observer.
Now once we entertain philosophical contexts of usage, I assert that 'existence' presupposes at least an element of naive realism.

Sorry, but for me ' existence' is merely a word like any other whose meaning/import is embedded in its context of usage, therefore I cannot argue for its non linguistic viability. The non philosophical contexts of its usage involve disputes about 'utility', which for the purposes of naive realistic posturing replace utility with the word 'existence' instead as though the disputed concept were independent of an observer.
Now once we entertain philosophical contexts of usage, I assert that 'existence' presupposes at least an element of naive realism. — fresco

It’s a tough job being a naive realist. All that posturing - it takes a lot out of a person.

Why just this morning I made breakfast. I ground up some coffee beans, made the coffee, poured some cold cereal in a bowl, added skim milk, ate it - and I also drank some coffee. And in all of this I did not once use any words whose meaning was embedded in it’s context of usage.

Dang it, all that posturing was hard work. I need a nap.

I cannot argue for its non linguistic viability. — fresco

I'm completely ok with dismissing the notion of nonlinguistic thought. The more I consider it, the more it becomes apparent that it is quite redundant and that it unnecessarily complicates matters.

Discarding has no comparison to refutation when it comes to argument. Discarding is a cowardly retreat — Merkwurdichliebe

Think what this means, though. How much time would you give to refuting the 'lizard people' conspiracy theory? A little more realistically, how willing are you to wade into various proofs of the existence of god? Are you in suspense until you do so? Is it a cowardly retreat to recognize the futility of certain approaches? And then to recognize the futility of trying to show this futility within that approach? Refutation of the flawed approach within the flawed approach is just confusion.

In this context I agree with @fresco in terms of attitude, but they are laying down one more system that depends on idiosyncratic uses of words that already work just fine. If the gist is a rejection of armchair science, then what is needed is paint thinner and not another coat of theory (unlearning, discarding).

Why just this morning I made breakfast. I ground up some coffee beans, made the coffee, poured some cold cereal in a bowl, added skim milk, ate it - and I also drank some coffee. And in all of this I did not once use any words whose meaning was embedded in it’s context of usage. — EricH

I relate to the attitude expressed above.

It's not that I think that meaning isn't embedded. I think I understand what people mean by that. I guess the issue is whether it's used as a pointer to what we all already know or something clever and elusive. Perhaps a better approach is just listening to ourselves in real life. Theories are fine, but when it comes to meaning we aren't exactly locked outside of the laboratory.

Is it a cowardly retreat to recognize the futility of certain approaches? — g0d

It is a glorious victory to recognize the futility of all approaches, but discuss them nevertheless.
:cheer:

I'm completely ok with dismissing the notion of nonlinguistic thought. The more I consider it, the more it becomes apparent that it is quite redundant and that it unnecessarily complicates matters. — Merkwurdichliebe

What exactly are you calling "nonlinguistic thought"?

:brow:

Looks like a conflation between an account and what's being taken into account.

Care to offer an argument for how you've arrived at those conclusions?

Looks like your breakfast scenario was mostly 'seamless coping' .For example, I"m prepared to lay money that at least one or more of the words you used in your later report never came into your head at the time. Nor I suppose did you contemplate the existential dependency of your 'items"on a human cultural context even though they were.
Naive realism is the default mode for seamless coping. You don't need to work at it.

It is clear in my own eye's that all conceptions serve merely to represent that unto which our sight is to be affixed, as determined by the particular considerations of the instance in which such usage, wherever it may arise, has come to manifest. The object, if not series thereof, of which one can speak, need only reflect unto that to which it would pertain, and designate. All manner of expression in speech, is bound by the many constraints which inhere within itself, thus restricting the breadth of forms with which it is permitted to coincide, and exemplify. No aspect of language ought to conflict, nor detract from the clarity with which meaning can be conferred. Yet such a principle, presents a certain sense of dimunition, in regard to the degree of variance in forms of expression of which one can speak, in the course throughout which one has hoped to convey mere sentiment. To offer illustration, take heed of that which is to come.

One can present the utterance, "That man ate many green boats." I imagine those through whom there is to be made passage of judgement, would seek to offer recognition with much sincerity in mind, only of the absence of true meaning, as conferred by means of the former(phrase), upon their apprehension of what it shall entail, insofar as it be deemed representative of the course, spoken of. Therein lies the modality of such restriction in depth; the latter attribution would serve to preclude, and by means of the same facilitate dismissal of the prospect in which the prior utterance, that unto which we affix our sight, expresses without incurrance of lesser clarity, what is the case in truth. ('That man may very well have eaten many green boats, yet we discard the prospect of such truth outright for the absurdity in tone which it presupposes and therefrom dispense with the liberty to describe that very instance, should it arise.') In judgement we ascribe prejudice unto that of which we strive to express and thus persist in mere reflection, for the principle under which all else remains contingent. In concurrence with the preceding condition, no basis through which there is granted entailment of representation, in form, corresponds without fault to that of the object of which it alone stands reflective.

For the sake of brevity;
"The map isn't the territory, nor can it ever be otherwise." -
"Loss in clarity needn't entail loss in meaning."-
"All representations must impart a sense of understanding on our behalf, of the distinct forms (and properties) which they seek to designate, if their usage is to be vindicated."-
"All our renditions of phenomena are only partial, with respect to each phenomenon thereof." -

What exactly are you calling "nonlinguistic thought"? — creativesoul

Any thought that doesn't involve language.

Has one clear example of nonlinguistic thought even been posited?

One can conceive without fault of an instance in which the sole modality of thought, lying in pertainment to the same, harbors entrenchment in mere imagery, and shall exemplify no basis for conflict, amongst that of all manner of predication, for itself. One must descend beyond such a condition, in that of which oneself has conceived, since, insofar as there be sought description of the object held in mind; yet the image of the latter, can persist in spite of its absence.

There can be thought without language, though the converse stands destitute of truth; there can be no language without thought.

What exactly are you calling "nonlinguistic thought"?
— creativesoul

Any thought that doesn't involve language. — Merkwurdichliebe

All unspoken ones then?

Naive realism is the default mode for seamless coping. You don't need to work at it. — fresco

What other modes are there?