>>13732244it doesnt have any inherent existance beyond what it subjectively means to every person.
however, due to convention and learning(indoctrination), 1 will mean the same thing to "most people"...
so its not that its objective its just that it's subjective reality is shared with enough people enabling conversation.
this is no different to the word 'gay'.
however if you were to use the word 'gay' in the 1800s im sure it would actually mean 'happy' and not your sexual orientation.
this shows that a) homosexuals have no shame and even steal words standing for happiness from the wider population and b) the meaning of words change.
say some Harvard or MIT cunt tomorrows decides that the number 1 should really stand for what the number 2 now stands for and vice versa and the jewish press publishizes this widely and use their agents in academia to push it into the curricula.
then suddenly the word 1 now means 2 for the greatest amounts of consciousnesses.
do you catch my drift?
