Naming Our Brain Works

We have the ability to name objects (that which has form) or relation between objects that our brain has worked out.

In assumption each and every name first and foremost refers to concept. Once we think beyond (or transcend) this assumption then we realize that these nominal conceptions either reference an object (whether real, imaginary, hypothetical, and so on and so forth)  . . . or they reference some sort of relation or comparison between objects that our brain has worked out (for example love, gravity, number, etc.) and we decided to label by the act of naming. The act of naming always relates the human who named to the object named or the conception conceived and so this is a sort of primal concept. And the criteria for figuring out whether or not a human named an object or a concept is form. This Gottlob Frege never figured out when he said "the concept horse is not a concept". He had his own complex categories, but his investigations are still useful to borrow from.

But the sort of furtive act in all this is naming our conceptions. We work out a relation or comparison between objects and name this relation or comparison. So naming sort of works an affinity between us and our brain-work. We reify our brain-work (that is convert concept into object) and establish a sort of false relation in this. We cannot literally relate to a work our brain consummated so we do a trick by reifying, that is imagining that it is an object and ourselves relating to it. This is sort of a transcendental if you want. And this is what is confusing I think. Its easy to imagine Adam waking up, and naming that which has form (objects). But then Adam went to retire for the day and started working out relations between all these objects he named and then he named or traced these relations. The way we can resolve whether or not a word concept relates back to object or concept is form.  Does the referent have form?  Yes or no?

Blah

I have this concept. . . I call it blah blah blah. Blah, blah, blah, is not a thing.  Blah has no form, but I treat blah like a thing in the act of naming, thinking and communication. I reified. I converted this idea into an object. But I just ignore the fact I reified blah blah blah. Now I literally think that blah is an object that performs verbs and is involved in causal relations and undergoes change effects with the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, the stars and all atoms. Blah does it all. Blah is real. And with blah we can work miracles like travel back in time! Blah will take us to new galaxies. With blah we will inhabit new worlds!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

But remember blah is just an idea I thought so don't take me too seriously. This is just for shits and giggles, and we make millions off of this concept. And besides we need another trillion dollars to validate this concept.