Can you offer a convincing explanation as to how adding 'a priori' to the start of a proposition makes that proposition not a proposition?
Even if you could show that adding qualifiers to propositions can magic them into being non-propositions then you are in the following position.
a) you are not making a proposition, so you're literally saying nothing in regard to the relationship, if any, between meaninglessness and propositions
If, however, you cannot manage it you are back where I initially said you were
b) in the self-defeating position of making a proposition which states that all propositions are meaningless.
If it is a, then the most rational thing you can do is to shut up. If it is b then the most reasonable thing you can do is acknowledge the self-defeating nature of that position, appropriately modify your belief on the matter, and move on.
Curious that you find contradiction in David's position but not your own. He stated that propositions need context for meaning, that they are meaningful only in relation to other propositions (though, yes, he stated it in a negative way), but what about the proposition that all propositions need context? Yes, it requires context as well.
Essentially what he said was "we don't know reality" in itself, without a context. And you seem to disagree. Yet, you have also stated that we do know reality "in itself" by means of mystical experiences. But knowing that the experience *is* reality is a proposition, which requires context, so it cannot be known "in itself".
David did not say that all propositions are meaningless without qualification. He said that they are meaningless "in and of themselves", in other words, without context, without relation to other propositions. The proposition that propositions are meaningless in and of themselves does not negate his earlier statement, but demonstrates it because that proposition -- to be meaningful -- requires some type of context for us to understand it.
This is very similar to your rejoinder to someone else who said, and I am paraphrasing, "experience alone is not sufficient" and to which you replied, and I am again paraphrasing, "you could only decide that by means of experience."
You don't seem to pay attention to what people actually say but try to gainsay based on some different version of what they say. The earlier poster did not say that experience is useless for knowledge but that experience alone is not sufficient for knowledge. You somehow seemed to turn that into a proposition that the poster holds that experience is useless, which is the only way I can fathom that your reply makes any sense. Same with David. You've turned his statement about our inability to make sense out of propositions without context into a statement that we are unable to understand propositions at all.
Do you understand why people accuse you of building straw houses?
On a larger note, is anyone interested in getting to the bottom of all this nonsense by actually examining the definitions of the words we use, or should we continue spinning wheels for another ten pages while one group throws mud at the other and both use different definitions and equivocate in an endless parade of semantic masturbation?
