/lit/ - Literature

>>16394320
>Wrong, it adds the meaning that we don't quite yet understand what part of it is different.
Then the difference cannot be dealt with using definite cases. To understand that something holds the property of difference, it necessitates a comparison to another thing and for that comparison to yield meaning for both components of the proposition, and for those meanings to be understood as different, and thus inherently the definitive case comes with the preclusion of understanding. You have either abused the definitive case, or you have just gone back on what you have written.

>And they as separate terms/things, "itself". Etc etc.
This is false. "Itself" is a reflexive pronoun, it's syntactically binded to the nominal "it", as the object. For all of the examples to choose, picking the one syntactic element which solely exists as a coreferential part of speech seems to indicate that you have a tenuous grasp of the concept of "meaning" in the first place.

At any rate, I already laid out to you what this "difference" that you supposedly (in your own words) have trouble understanding. Perhaps a simpler example:
x = 1
y = 1
Both of these variables are stand-ins for the concept of signs, though the proposition is but a simulacra of signs and a heuristic for argument's sake. They both are assigned the meaning of "1", such that any operation on either of them is implicitly understood as an operation on the number "1", despite neither of them being the number one, and indeed being variables are not numerical literals. This is of course an analogy of the sign process, and that the sign is not the meaning (and a sign can never point to itself), but merely exists as the vessel of meaning. The meaning remains the same, only the vessel has changed.

Feel free to find a flaw in the algebra or first-order calculus, though. I've spent too much time responding to this bait already.