What is said was “this sentence is made by a mind”. It doesn’t matter what was called what within the statement.
Then he said, “the truth of the statement is not a matter of the mind”. Again, it doesn’t matter what was labeled what within the statement. The actual claim is not up to the reader. If the reader decides that he meant something other than what he really meant, it doesn’t make the claim false, but merely misrepresented or misunderstood. The effectiveness of or flaws in the communication does not determine the match between the intention and the reality. The message being garbled does not change what was trying to be sent. It is the match between the intention and the reality that determines the truth.
In public, certain definitions are expected and if those definitions are changed, one might think that a lie has been told because a false sense of “objective language” is assumed. But the question is always the intention of the author, not the susceptibility of the language to be confused. In obvious cases, one can claim that a lie was told only because it is obvious that the word choices were really intended to mean as they were read. But again, it is always a question of what was intended, and that has nothing to do with the language or someone else’s chosen interpretation. Either the intention matches reality or it doesn’t.
… but when you were a kid, did you never play, “Code words,” with a friend of yours? I certainly know that I played such a game, and the way it worked is that if we didn’t want the adults to know what we were talking about (or other kids) we would make a statement that seemed to have absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing, but we agreed on what the statements, “Really,” meant within certain contexts, making communication possible. “A rose by any other name,” I keep telling you guys.
You just proved my point. It is the intention that counts, not the language.
You seem to have an interesting way of standing on both sides of an argument during a single post.