I’m not sure whether I enjoyed your story more or Timothy Maddon’s proclivity to be “profoundly insulted”! Truly you are both masters of the dark arts of satire.

Best wishes,
James

LOL… just having a little fun with words here.

It is similar to the word “person”. All “persons” are created by law and not otherwise. I was not created by law, therefore I am not a “person”. I am a being of conscience, and I am profoundly insulted when someone calls me a “person”. Likewise with the word “individual”. I am an individual “being of conscience” but I am not and cannot be an “individual” without further qualification as such begs the question and so truncates broadly-defined thought process.

The primary damage is done at the point where one defaults to the explanation of “Well the subject word or term can be either an adjective or a noun depending on the context.” By accepting that explanation one creates what I call a counter-sense word or term that can mean either “X” or “Minus-X” depending on the needs of the decider.

Among the most significant counter-sense words is the word “principal” in the financial sense. Is the amount of “principal” the amount actually advanced or invested by the creditor and received by the debtor to their own use and control? Or is it the amount that the debtor is required to agree that they owe regardless of the amount actually so received? Is the amount of principal a question of fact (a noun)? Or is it a question of agreement of parties – an adjective or opinion? By total amount, all debt everywhere in the world today depends on the answer to that question. By reason and logic it must be a question of objective fact. By practice virtually every financial contract in the world treats it a matter of agreement of parties.

“I will loan you $100,000 at 30% provided that you give me a security that claims that I loaned you $130,000 at 6%, plus an unregistered side agreement for a $30,000 kick-back to me.” Going back about just ten years, without that cognitive sleight-of-hand all the debt in the world exactly disappears.

Your short story correctly identifies language as the central issue but you have assumed that the essential aspect is the assignment of bogus meanings that cannot be changed once so applied, while I think that the larger reality is defined by “counter-sense” words that function as “oscillating contradictions” that flip between nouns and adjectives according to the (unconscious) needs of the decider. Hope it helps. Tim.

Might come back and post another reply as I gain more insight to your post 🙂