Well, Bill, at least we have learned to shorten this fundamental dialogue to its core disagreement.

I think the essence of the matter, really, is in appreciating the viewing of the viewer, so to speak. Linguistic constructs really are not the issue; there is no question (just for example) that you experience your dreams. Or, more to the point, your visions of what a large burl might become when you have wrought your art on it. For that matter, I am pretty sure you see (in a more nuanced sense) your times tables, when you are called on to use them, and the lyrics of the songs you know whether you see them as words, or as images of the tale, or as recordings, or as something else altogether. An appreciation of the viewer and his role in what is viewed throws a lot of question into the default Newtonian version of "what Is".

I think it is well and good to maintain a skeptical approach, given the amount of horse manure for sale in the world. But there is an important line where skepticism turns on itself and becomes jade or cynicism, not conducive to clear-sightedness or well-being either. (This of course raises another interesting philosophical question fit for Socrates, as to what relationship exists between those two attributes.)

A