JS No apologies required as the confusion is mutual. Look, let's break it down into managable units of analysis: we have an object at FA that at f2 has the name "ball". The object so-named exists independently of its associated f2 transform (its inclusion in the set "ball". The object itself and its name are different logical types and are at different logical levels. When you write, "There are two sets of sensory objects that refer to each other, for instance, the word "ball," which has its own phonological and visual (the letters of the word, for instance) presence, and the ball refered to, which may be blue, and on a table." I have no idea what you are proposing. In what possible sense does the ball refer to the word "ball" - this makes no sense to me so I ask that you elaborate - perhaps I am simply missing your point here. I can do better with your, " I'm assuming that when you are talking about F2, you're not talking about the phonological qualities of the words themselves, nor their written representation," the phonological properties of the spoken work "ball" and its visual appearance when presented in a written form are experiences at FA of an example of an f2 transform. I think to use the metaphor of an invisible linkage between words and the objects they refer to confuses the issue - there is no invisible linkage - there is simply an unconscious agreement among fluent speakers (in this case, of English) to summon up the images, sounds, feelings... (the ancient 4-tuple) for the meaning of the word "ball" by essentially an "open file" command on internal maps when hearing the work "ball". I think I will await further elucidation on your part. John