Editing Philosophical Research:Schizophrenic point of view (section)

== Lexemes ==

The ideal Lexeme item is created specifically because a term has at least two different opposing definitions. For example: <i>language</i>. In everyday usage, language can be defined as a prescriptive system belonging to a particular group of people, or a descriptive system belonging to multiple groups of people, leading to contradictory assertions that terms like <i>ain't</i> or <i>facticity</i> are "not words" within the English language and "not part of language" versus other assertions that because someone uses them they are "inherently part of language". To begin resolving this contradiction, we create a Lexeme item for "language" containing both of these definitions and tagging them with their appropriate ideology or philosophy.

{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean" style="margin-top: 1.2em; margin-bottom: 1.2em;">
<li class="field_exstruct" value="100" data-dimension="L">language
  <ol><li>a method of communication based around associations between [[redlink to sign|signs]]  and concepts or between signs and other signs
 </li><li>(structuralist linguistics) a descriptive system of rules by which further consistent rules for communication are constructed: see [[redlink to descriptive linguistics|descriptive linguistics]]
 </li><li>(Toryism) a [[redlink to prescriptive|prescriptive]] system of rules for communication tightly associated with a particular unique [[redlink to nationalism|nationality]] or social graph: see [[redlink to linguistic prescriptivism|linguistic prescriptivism]]
 </li></ol>
</li></ol>

This helps resolve conflicts that may occur when editing more complex ontologies in the main Item namespace: "I mean language as in prescriptivism!" Should a new user come along who for some reason is not content with the primary model of a given concept and wishes to edit a different model of it, this user can then point the alternate model of "language" to Lexeme Sense L100-S3. As much as this capability may seem alarming to the uninitiated, appearing to open all the proverbial floodgates for the legitimacy of all reactionary ideologies and strip words of their meaning, it has many valid uses by members of progressive ideologies such as disambiguating reactionary meanings from intended meanings and studying the history or formation of reactionary meanings and models. With other tools such as the F2 Statement category, particular models may be marked as incorrect or outdated in relation to real-world observations, and Lexemes become convenient disambiguation landings for separating fact from conspiracy theory.