Does the concept signify a reality? When I write to homunculus or dave I write (i think) to a reality. I use the name to signify an existing thing namely you. I am not writing to a name. I am writing to what the name signifies. I disagree with you I think the concept points to a reality.
Sorry for the delayed response, Frank. I’m not completely certain that I understand your above statement. First, though, I have no problem with people on this forum calling me Dave. I have a last name as well, but I don’t reveal that to many people partly for security reasons, and partly because a Google search of my name brings up an assortment of people, one or two of whom I don’t want to be mistaken for.
“Does the concept signify a reality?”
I see reality as occupying a variety of levels of literality, none of them even resembling Platonic formalism which your tradition embraces. So I’d say that we are pretty much destined to be at odds with each other in this regard. But think about the various levels of literality that can be ascribed to each and every word that we use. For instance, my use of “destined” above. I don’t mean to use that word literally in one sense (i.e. casually), but in another deeper sense, it really could be taken literally. People deal with this sort of analysis all the time, only rarely if ever stopping to look under the surface.
Frank, I don’t buy into the concept of gods, so what else can reasonably be expected of my views on reality? To me low-level (to borrow a computer programming term) reality is not at all understood. Quantum mechanics is able to deal somewhat with it, making predictions, etc. But explaining it completely seems a long way off.
I hope I haven’t misinterpreted your question too badly.