Words

Words like 'here' and 'now' indicating locality, only exist in the mind as indications of source which has already shifted.
Expanding space/time, and the speed of gathering and processing sense data, implies a temporal distance between noetic construct and phenomenon, producing the stimulation, via a medium, such as light/atmosphere.
local is also a simplification/generalisation, of interacting patterns - their interactions given meaning.

Let us consider the word “race” as the Moderns use it, reducing it to an insubstantial word, a word with no meaning other than as a dictionary term describing emotional reactions.
For the average, typical Modern, the word “race” has now been connected to the word “image’, by detaching it from appearance/presence.
Appearance implies uncovering of something real, image implies a construct, an intentional appearance; appearance with motive, fabricated to facilitate the motive’s realization.
For the Modern race is a matter of image, a social construct, and those using it in a manner contrary to the popular are motivated by hatred, or by esoteric needs.
Although this might be so for the majority of race mongers, the so called rednecks and skinheads, this is more so for these bleeding heart Moderns who are like the aforementioned only their mongering consists in evading the meaning the term “race” originally referred to: a perceptible divergence requiring an explanation in past/nature.
Reducing a concept to a word, and then connecting it to a noumenon, because that is what moderns do.
They detach the word ‘race”, representing a noumenon that relates to a phenomenon, and then they reattach it to a hypothetical noetic fabrication, in another’s mind.
By doing so they convert the word from one noting a difference, as is obvious from appearance/presence, into an abstraction a theory, a feeling, which can be fabricated, stimulated, changed.
From appearance to image, implying a shallow social construct. In this they agree with those rednecks and skinheads who also use it to fabricate a personal image.
This is what I’ve called the duality, the binary logic of the nihilistic paradigm, where good/bad, good/evil, Republican/Democrat are dominated by the same delusions – absolute one/absolute nil; polarity of the Modern’s cognitive box.
This reduction is a reduction in time/space dimensions – a dumbing-down.
Whereas race, for a realist, means an appearance which reflects the organism’s entire past/nature, for the modern’s redefined image, it is malleable, alterable, meaningless other than it is a choice, a form of expression.
An image is selected, therefore that these, so called, “racists” select it in the way they do must be explained using psychobabble.
For a realists the appearance of a Negro, or an Asian, is no more a selection than it is for a chimpanzee, or a dog, to look as they do. The selection of social artifices, like words, clothes, make-up, to cover this appearance does imply a motive of concealing.
The social construct is the covering-up of what is apparent/present.

Academic Pretenses
Academic minds seek acknowledgment from other academic minds.
They use the “proper jargon” academics will appreciate, even if they cannot define, or place in the world.
Sole criterion for an idea is that it has been given a name; it exists as a noumenon they can all refer and defer to.
Proper jargon places the academic into the class he seeks to be defined by.
The word may be nonsense, and have no meaning outside minds, but what counts is that it exists, as a specialized form of distinguishing the class of academics, form the laymen, who cannot trace back the word to its origins in the mind of another academic, or some famous figure academics are forces to acknowledge as being a contributing force into the fields of their interest.
An academic is primarily one who studies the history and symbols and relationships of the contributors in the field of his study – he has no other contribution. He answers questions about his specialty by referring and deferring, to those who practiced the discipline he studied theoretically.
When he is forced to answer a question he has no personal answer to he uses the methods, adopts the linguistics, of the field of his expertise, insinuating an understanding by association.
When asked to explain his, personal, positions about world, he cannot, without deferring and referring, using the jargon that distinguishes his expertise, and pretends to be deep and unapproachable, too complex for the laymen to grasp, if he does not make himself intimate with the appropriate jargon.

For example, when asked to explain the concept of “self”, the academic spirit, fearing that his personal ignorance will taint his institutional value, risking further advancement, will use terms like “uncanny”, because the term has been used by another intellectual, or pseudo-intellectual.  
He hopes that the listener will be so intimidated by the word that he will not look into the dictionary to read the conventional definition:

Dictionary wrote:

un·can·ny
ˌənˈkanē/
adjective
Strange or mysterious, especially in an unsettling way.
‘An uncanny feeling that she was being watched’
Synonyms: eerie, unnatural, unearthly, preternatural, supernatural, otherworldly, ghostly, mysterious, strange, unsettling, abnormal, weird, bizarre, surreal, eldritch;

He is admitting he cannot define a word which is a part of his expertise, implying that he is using it as another “thinker” used it, and this alone makes it a proper explanation.
If the academic is a pseudo-intellectual, and only adopts an academic spirit to insinuate that he is the equal of the career types, he will use this method to “explain” without explaining – to evade, pretending that if you reject his non-explanation you are actually contradicting all those “thinkers” who used the same word.
This is really an admission of ignorance, without dropping the pretence of gnosis.
A non-explanation explanation.
The other motive might be found in the conventional definition of the word, which in this case uses words like “supernatural”, ”unearthly” and so on, to indirectly imply what he cannot bring himself to admit openly: that his “rational” positions, are founded on irrational premises.  
His "genius" being nothing more than a convolution of concepts to imply an understanding of what he, himself, admits he does not, offering no more than indefinite definitions.

I had said that I want nothing more than an honest death. It made no sense to me in the modern conception of honesty being one who tells only truths in an absolutist sense. Claiming someone is dishonest is much more insulting than calling them incorrect. What I had said - I want an honorable death.

Honest - Honor

Dictionary wrote:

honest (adj.)
c. 1300, "respectable, decent, of neat appearance," also "free from fraud," from Old French oneste, honeste "virtuous, honorable; decent, respectable" (12c.; Modern French honnête), from Latin honestus "honorable, respected, regarded with honor," figuratively "deserving honor, honorable, respectable," from honos (see honor (n.)) + suffix -tus. Main modern sense of "dealing fairly, truthful, free from deceit" is c. 1400, as is sense of "virtuous, having the virtue of chastity" (of women). Phrase to make an honest woman of "marry (a woman) after seduction" is from 1620s.

Word Definitions
The meaning of a word has two limits, making the word/symbol, a conduit between noumenon and phenomenon.
Its two limits are the language’s formal definition, found in the dictionary, and then the word’s representation of a noumenon, or a phenomenon.
If it only refers to a noumenon, it is an idea(l), a representation of a theoretical concept, an abstraction; if it refers to an observable, sensually experienced, apprent/presence, a phenomenon, it is pragmatic, realistic.
 


The meaning of the word is not arbitrary, although it can be used metaphorically, to insert into its conventional definition an insinuation, a nuance.
A word’s meaning is determined by how the phenomena, noumena, relate, in the world, empirically, and/or theoretically, how they relate noetically.
Some metaphorical application combine the two into a theoretical unity. The problem with this is that one can insert nonsensical meanings alongside sensible ones, and then claim the unity as rational or mystical, depending on the meaning desired to be dominant in particular circumstances.
This method allows the association of nonsense with reason, relying on ambiguity to claim a meaning that exists only ni the minds of the users as a motive.

Most often emotion is inserted alongside reason, tainting reason, and giving emotion a rationality, through the compound unity of the rational and the irrational, the sensible and the mystical.

Meaning...

Formal Definition, according to a linguistic convention, tradition, evolved within specific environments (noumenon) -> Word/Symbol -> an appearance, presence, outside the organism's congruity (phenomenon)

The (->) represents the medium - green for bio-energy (neural pulse) and the red for light/atmosphere, electromagnetism etc.

Noumenon <>Word<>Phenomenon

Anti-Nihilist Serum...first dose.

The others are in the "fridge", Adyton.

Zombie wars are coming.

Visceral power of words is perceived in a child's return to the lowest-common-denominator of his understanding of a phenomenon.
Distress also has the effect of regression to a primal, immature state.
Mind turns inward to deal with the outward, and from there it throws out threatening noises, formed into word; words associated with its basest instincts relating to what conforts it, and frightens it.
Fear closes off all unimportant brain processes, like stress shuts down body processes, pin preparation for fight/flight.

Source of fear is labeled with symbols, imagery, words, that come out of the most visceral parts of the psyche.
In modern times, where environment is entirely made up of human symbols, primal fear finds images, symbols, in memory, placed there by meme, to make sense of the incomprehensible, or what cannot be dealt with using any other means.
Cornered animals will attack, as a last ditch effort to survive.