Absolute Morality...again.

Well, in Oregon as I understand the law it means the vehicle comes to a complete stop before proceeding. There are exceptions to this I imagine such as emergency vehicles with lights and sirens having the right away. And by extension someone rushing a dying infant to a hospital would probably not be prosecuted if they ran a stop sign on the way to the emergency room.I don't think this is a useful example of literalism. For one thing not being a literalist doesn't mean one denies that there are cases of literalism, but rather one doesn't hold that literalism is sufficient.
For that matter I think even literalist recognize some examples of figurative language. They don't hold that when someone says "my heart leaped into my throat" that they mean the anatomically location of their heart changed to their throat.The fact that I find a literal interpretation of a stop sign meaningful doesn't mean I interpret all language literally.I'm a bit puzzled why you even posted this example I don't see it as meaningful. Have you heard people arguing about the meaning? And even so when shown the legal definition did they continue to have problems?lfen

Is this an existing theory or one you are developing? Have you considered Wittgenstein's writings on language?Are you defining concept as something non verbal? How are you defining concept?lfen

I'm not sure then what you are working with. I know I would look at neurology and not just of humans. I am lately looking at what I think of as the innate knowledge of the organism as the foundation for our living.By this I mean the organism pre conceptually knows a lot of important functions like how to breathe, how to chew, secrete saliva, stomach acid , etc. Also how to reach, move, just the animal survival skills. When you consider these functions do they resemble what you mean by concepts?Or are you thinking of something along the lines of Plato's archetypes, perhaps?lfen

I actually never got around to reading or figuring out what all this post this and that stuff was about.Do you recall that in Euclidean geometry certain terms are undefined. You have these axioms and you just have to intuitively accept that you know what a point is for example. Is a point in Euclidean geometry an example of a concept in your system? Now I'm thinking you are using "non-verbal concept" in the way that I would use referent. "Tomato" is a word for a thing you can eat. I ask you for a tomato and you hand me an apple we have had an unsuccesful communication. If I ask you for a tomato and you hand me something that I find satisfactory then our communication succeeded. This is very elementary description of language but is this what you are talking about?lfen

"means" is a difficult criterion, and to mean exactly the same thing seems very difficult. If you want everyone to select a tomato from a group of items that is one thing,but what about people who dislike tomatos vs. those who love them? What about those who believe they are poisonous vs. those who believe they are healthy? Given the individual conditionings how can tomato mean the exact same thing to any two people. I hold it is impossible. On the other hand it is reasonable to expect a large group of people to accurately identify a tomato even though they will have unique responses and associations to it.lfen

Well, I hope then that what you are calling "concept" is a functional identification rather than some absolute ideal of tomato in itself.Why? partly because language is context sensitive. There is the edible fruit that grows on plants and that we eat. But I could also ask you to select a tomato from a group of photographs, or plastic representations of food for instance. Do we ever know exactly what a tomato is? I don't think so. What we have is the ability to function in regards to tomatoes.We can plant, harvest, purchase, slice, can etc. a tomato all the while not really knowing everything there is to know about it. If by concept you mean something like Plato's archetype of a tomato then I don't follow you.If this functional usage is what you mean then literalism doesn't give you absolute knowledge but rather functional knowledge. Language as utility not as truth. My claim is that literalism occurs when people think that by naming something they have understood it and know it in some absolute total way. The belief that words can give one absolute certainty and assurance of knowledge is what I mean by the error of literalism.lfen