"Correct reference" refers to the correct use of language, and "actuality" refers to "that which really is". What constitutes as "correct use" of language is a very complicated subject, as I'm sure you appreciate. It involves a wide variety of context-dependant linguistic and cultural factors that are entirely manmade. Social conventions and laws, political or artistic concepts and a litany of other concepts are all part of "correct reference". — Judaka

Interesting. So, is this a "it's turtles all the way down" situation, where language references only language with no other reference point / correspondence?

A basic example is ownership/private property. "It's true that I own the computer I'm using" is true by "correct reference". It's true according to the social conventions of the society that I live in, since I bought this computer, and it resides in my dwelling and I use it. If you want to treat concepts as though they're above language and manmade rules, and "truth" as beyond such things, then there's zero basis for believing that the concept of "ownership" is real. Or look at a card game like Yu-gi-oh or Pokémon, "It's true that Pikachu is a Pokémon", you'd probably agree, even though it's complete fiction. — Judaka

Of course social constructs like property and fictional entities are ultimately self-referential, and so your argument works here.

But what about rules that don't seem mutable by human though or action? What we call the laws of physics can be expressed in infinite ways linguistically, but the rules remain the same. Gravity will not reverse and pull you into the clouds if you define up as down.

Yep, that's right.

Though "truth" can also be used to directly refer to a hypothetical "correct reference", using the logic contained within words. Such as "hypothetical" applicability, something that could be correctly said, even if it wasn't said. For instance, it's true that I wrote this comment, because it'd be correct to say that I wrote this comment, it's true regardless of whether anybody actually makes the claim that I did. — Judaka

Aren't you making the claim by writing it? This is slightly confusing to me.

Another example is how people say things like "True courage is X", possibly to suggest that it's incorrect to reference Y as courage, because only X is correct to refer to as courage. I could say "I want to find out what true compassion is", "true compassion" is equal to "that which can be correctly referred to as compassion". In summary, your description is correct in this context, but we can manipulate that concept in these ways that you're undoubtedly familiar with. — Judaka

But isn't what people are concerned in this scenario the negation of a value judgement? That is they're not concerned with what the word means in the sense of a dictionary definition. Rather the goal is to exclude a certain behaviour from the positive value judgement that's emotionally connected to the language.

It's based on the "shared human experience", we could agree on that. It's also based on practicality, we want similar functions from our languages. — Judaka

But could it not also be a priori?

Conceptually that's true, but not in practice, as I tried to demonstrate here. — Judaka

Well it's sometimes true in practice. But of course in practice one is almost always wrong in some way.

Technically, truth does not respond to one's wishes, but it does respond to one's desires, values, logic and intended meaning. — Judaka

I think that's the core of our disagreement. From the perspective of some theoretical Maxwell's demon, everyone is wrong and their truths contingent on their beliefs, circumstances etc. But from the perspective of the people doing the talking and thinking, their truth is the truth.

So, is this a "it's turtles all the way down" situation, where language references only language with no other reference point / correspondence? — Echarmion

I'm having a hard time understanding this question. Could you reword it?

But what about rules that don't seem mutable by human though or action? What we call the laws of physics can be expressed in infinite ways linguistically, but the rules remain the same. — Echarmion

I'm not sure I understand, the words "rules" and "mutable" are throwing me off. Also, I'm not sure what problem you're asking me to address.

Gravity will not reverse and pull you into the clouds if you define up as down. — Echarmion

Indeed. And water won't kill me if I call it poison.

However, I'm still not sure that I understand the issue you want me to address.

Aren't you making the claim by writing it? This is slightly confusing to me. — Echarmion

It was just an example of hypothetical applicability. "Truth" is something we can use as part of our decision-making and thinking. "If it's true that I need to pay my rent today, then I should pay it", type of thing. I'd need you to go into more detail about what was confusing for me to clarify further.

But isn't what people are concerned in this scenario the negation of a value judgement? That is they're not concerned with what the word means in the sense of a dictionary definition. Rather the goal is to exclude a certain behaviour from the positive value judgement that's emotionally connected to the language. — Echarmion

The speaker would indeed be unconcerned with the dictionary definition, this is a matter of word applicability, which is related to interpretation. A certain behaviour could be "True courage" or not depending on how we interpret/understand it. Though, this is very tangential to the point I was making.

But could it not also be a priori? — Echarmion

From my perspective truth requires language, I don't see how there could be any priori without language.

I think that's the core of our disagreement. From the perspective of some theoretical Maxwell's demon, everyone is wrong and their truths contingent on their beliefs, circumstances etc. But from the perspective of the people doing the talking and thinking, their truth is the truth. — Echarmion

"The core of our disagreement" is how we understand the concept of truth. So, it can be difficult to follow when you contrast our views like this, am I to read the word "truth" using my understanding or yours?

For my part, some claims are influenced by one's beliefs, and some aren't. so it depends. This "perspective" you outlined seems to neither reflect your views nor mine.