By definition all definitions are limiting ... is and is not. > > true. > > > Ultimately language is dualistic (or pluralistic at best). Hence I have problem describing a monistic world view. Consequently while I can understand DHW's point of view he claims to be non the wiser after my explanations. -> Not for me. -While I don't doubt language can be used for other things, I can't see how language is not ultimately dualistic for you?-When you point to a tree and say "tree" are you not implying "not cow"?-If not, then I would say any explanation, say of woodlands, that you may have is just not going to cut it for me?