That's a phrase, not a word.
When you say "cannot", do you mean that I physically can't do it? Or that I'll be punished if I do? Or that speeding over 55 is meaningless? What do you mean by "speed"? Is it simply traveling faster than 55? Is it traveling faster than is safe for the conditions, so traveling at 60 on a road built for 80 is okay? What do you even mean by 55? Miles per hour? Kilometers per hour? Meters per second? When you say "over" 55, do you mean exactly 55.0, or is 55.8 okay? Maybe round down? Is 55.3 okay?
I could go on. You see, this is why I hate semantics debate.
That's a phrase, not a word.
I remind you, the issue is whether text cannot have an absolute meaning. Text is broader in meaning than a word.
I could go on. You see, this is why I hate semantics debate
No, I do not “see” your point at all. You have not shown text cannot have an absolute meaning.
For instance, the questions you ask do not establish the text lacks an absolute meaning. Some of the questions you ask support an absolute meaning by the notion of exclusion. For instance:
“Is it traveling faster than is safe for the conditions, so traveling at 60 on a road built for 80 is okay? Or that I'll be punished if I do? Or that speeding over 55 is meaningless?“ The text’s meaning doesn’t care. It is an all encompassing. It doesn’t matter what activity, there’s a limit to its speed, 55. It doesn’t matter what “speed” means, whatever it’s meaning it is limited to 55. And whatever 55 is in reference to, it is fixed at 55. That’s absolute meaning.
Now, as you noticed, the phrase is ambiguous. Intentionally. Why? Because ambiguity and absolute meaning are not mutually exclusive. What we know to be absolute about the text is that whatever is under discussion, 55 is a limit in some measurement.
A comparable legal example is the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. “No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
To be sure, there’s ambiguity. What is a person? What process is due? What is property? Liberty? Life? Yet, despite the ambiguity, there is an absolute meaning, which is whatever person means, not a single one can have taken away whatever liberty, life, or property means, unless by whatever meaning of “due process.” And the text, word usage and placement, tells us what due process cannot mean, it cannot mean life, liberty, or property cannot be taken away.
As I said before, text can be ambiguous, but to say text has “no” absolute meaning was to jump off a cliff with no parachute.
You're making a lot of assumptions that the other person knows exactly what you mean
No, no, no, no. That’s translation. If a Martian spoke a different dialect, then the goal is to communicate that text in
their language.
But when it comes to words, which are the necessary building blocks of any language, they have a limited range of meaning. Sometimes the words, word choice, by context, usage, word placement, do convey an absolute meaning. This is true of the English language. My examples, including the due process example, convey this point. As do my other examples in my prior post.
That’s what’s useful about my syllogism in my prior post. It has an absolute meaning.
All cats are mammals. All mammals are warm blooded. Therefore, all cats are warm blooded.
I borrowed this validity example because it is useful. In philosophy the meaning of the words do not affect whether the argument is valid. Whatever its terms mean, all cats are warm blooded is true if the premises are true. It is a valid argument.
Borrowing from that idea, the conclusion, text, statement, has an absolute meaning, that says whatever a cat means, whatever warm blooded means, all of them (cats) are warm blooded (whatever warm blooded means).
