What I'm doing here with the odd claim is attempting to drive an existential wedge between reports of things and what's being reported upon.

Imaginary people do not have thought/belief. — creativesoul

But they are reported that they have, by the author. "Jennifer thought the sky was bluer than on most other days." "Jennifer thought highly of George Bernard Shaw; she thought My Fair Lady was a fair interpretation of Pygmalion." Here, Jennifer is an imaginary woman, but her imaginary thoughts are reported by the author. She does not report them; she has them, as it is imagined by the writer and the reader.

What's the difference between Ahab and Melville's report?

Not a report 'after' if even the assignment of 'thinghood' is verbal.

Hold on. The novel existed before the first REPORT of it. That is, if you consider a school report, or a critical analysis, or even a library index card as REPORT, then the statement can't be criticized. The book, whether in manuscript form or in printed form, existed before anyone could report it.

There is no contradiction here at all what I can see. — god must be atheist

I suppose the statement is ambiguous enough to result in different answers. I was assuming that in this example, the "report" would be the novel itself. Otherwise it's just as obvious that, for example, the entire novel could exist before it's reported in the news.

Yes. The novel reports the thought, belief, and ideas of [Melville]... — creativesoul

Yes, but that's irrelevant. It obviously didn't exist in it's entirety beforehand. An entire novel of that size consists of hundreds of pages, and it's not possible that the entire novel, which would include every single detail, existed in the form of ideas, thoughts, or beliefs, before he had written it all down. You're the one who used the words "in its entirety".

What I'm doing here with the odd claim is attempting to drive an existential wedge between reports of things and what's being reported upon. — creativesoul

What you're attempting to do here is redundant. What you're doing here is once again pointlessly bringing to our attention another distinction of which we're already aware. It's very odd indeed that you appear to have made this your life's work. Here's a suggestion: wait until someone is stupid enough to say something like, "There's no difference between reports of things and what's being reported upon", and then what you're saying might actually be of relevance.

The novel existed in it's entirety prior to the first report of it. Melville reported upon something that existed in it's entirety while writing the novel as well. — creativesoul

I'm sure Melville talked about Moby Dick (the novel) before it was finished.

If that's a misunderstanding, then you haven't been clear enough.

What I'm doing here with the odd claim is attempting to drive an existential wedge between reports of things and what's being reported upon. — creativesoul

What does this mean? Do you mean you're arguing against idealism? Are you just saying that things and the reports thereof are different? What is the significance of saying that something exists "in its entirety" etc.? Why does it matter?

I'm going to drive a metaphysical wedge between music and dancing to music. They're not the same!

But you have to hear a song in its entirety before you can dance to it.

Yes, that which has that funky beat must exist in entirety before one can boogie woogie thereof.

Well put.

The novel existed in it's entirety prior to the first report of it. Melville reported upon something that existed in it's entirety while writing the novel as well.
— creativesoul

I'm sure Melville talked about Moby Dick (the novel) before it was finished.

If that's a misunderstanding, then you haven't been clear enough. — jamalrob

Sure. He could've shared that he was struggling with the ending.

Is there a difference between Moby Dick, Ahab, Pequod, and Melville's thought/belief? All three of the former are the latter, but not all Melville's thought/belief are Moby Dick, Ahab, or the Pequod.

What I'm doing here with the odd claim is attempting to drive an existential wedge between reports of things and what's being reported upon.
— creativesoul

What does this mean? Do you mean you're arguing against idealism? Are you just saying that things and the reports thereof are different? What is the significance of saying that something exists "in its entirety" etc.? Why does it matter? — jamalrob

I don't typically argue against 'isms'...

A thing's constitution can change over time. "In it's entirety" is helpful to understand existential dependency.

What's the difference between Ahab and Melville's report? — creativesoul

There is no difference in the final format. This is due to Ahab being Melville's brain child. Ahab can't say anything different from what Melville puts in his mouth.This is so because Melville was a person in reality, and Ahab, a person existing only in imagination.

An imagined person can't autonomously speak or write. He or she is under the complete influence of the person who penned him or her.

Not a report 'after' if even the assignment of 'thinghood' is verbal. — fresco

As god is my witness, I don't know what you are talking about. "After" what? Assignment of Thinghood? What the heck is a thinghood? Especially considering that you put it in quotation marks, which means that you don't really mean thinghood, but rather a different form of it.

I am sorry, I can't imagine what you are talking about, if you talk about a different form of something I don't knwo what you mean by.

'Assignment of thinghood' refers to the human activity of 'naming' which is the first level,of any measurement. A recent example might be the concept of 'global warming' which prior to a few years ago did not 'exist' in the sense of being a recognizable 'significant event' in human consciousness.

There is no difference in the final format. This is due to Ahab being Melville's brain child. Ahab can't say anything different from what Melville puts in his mouth.This is so because Melville was a person in reality, and Ahab, a person existing only in imagination.

An imagined person can't autonomously speak or write. He or she is under the complete influence of the person who penned him or her. — god must be atheist

Indeed.

'Assignment of thinghood' refers to the human activity of 'naming' which is the first level,of any measurement. A recent example might be the concept of 'global warming' which prior to a few years ago did not 'exist' in the sense of being a recognizable 'significant event' in human consciousness. — fresco

Not all naming is the assignment of thinghood. Many names were give,n taken, and extensively used long before any notion of 'assignment of thinghood'. Long before those terms were used first together as a name(the irony), we used names.

An entire novel of that size consists of hundreds of pages, and it's not possible that the entire novel, which would include every single detail, existed in the form of ideas, thoughts, or beliefs, before he had written it all down. You're the one who used the words "in its entirety". — S

The novel existed in it's entirety at the final rest of the pen/quill. An accurate report of the novel reports on the novel's evolutionary progression. A timeline of sorts. At different times, the novel had a different elemental constitution. It existed in it's entirety at each and every point in time since it's inception.

Some novels are never written.

Naming consists of elemental constituents. Names. Things being named. Things to draw a correlation between the two.

What happens when there is no elemental constitutive difference between the name and the thing being named?

Products of our own imagination.

Gender?

Is gender to us as Ahab is to Melville?

Give some examples ?

What's the matter with the ones we have?

Is appropriateness to us as Ahab is to Melville?

Is a tree?

Could Melville have gotten Ahab wrong?

Howzat?

:brow:

Can we get appropriateness wrong?

What determines getting it right(assuming one has gotten it wrong)? A change of one's mind.

What determines getting a tree wrong?

What determines getting it right(again, assuming one has gotten it wrong)? A change of one's mind.

The difference, of course, is that getting a tree wrong is to get something wrong that existed in it's entirety prior to our first naming it.

But wait...

There was also a standard of appropriateness prior to our first naming it. Not as one that we knew about, but rather as one that operated unbeknownst to our talking about it. Unspoken. Not yet named. Not yet described. Like the first ideas of Ahab in Melville's mind(at the time), doing certain things during certain times and in certain situations was an evolving cognitive endeavor. Unlike Ahab now... it remains so. Like Ahab has always been, it has now also become metacognitive.

The novel existed in it's entirety at the final rest of the pen/quill. An accurate report of the novel reports on the novel's evolutionary progression. A timeline of sorts. At different times, the novel had a different elemental constitution. It existed in it's entirety at each and every point in time since it's inception.

Some novels are never written. — creativesoul

So it's just wordplay then. We're both right. How disappointingly trivial.