This seems mostly a special, human focused perspective on the fundamental distinction I’d make between the ontological and the ontic, phenomenon and noumenon, pointing at a thing and the thing itself, and indeed the map and the territory. That’s not to lessen the distinction you make, because it’s a different one that is more intuitive to humans because our brains seem to consider the social a separate magisterium from the “causal”, but I think it draws much of its power from this underlaying distinction between what is inside and outside the content of experience, and the ways in which your distinction is not quite cutting reality at its joints in the same way the ontological/ontic distinction does are well pointed out by other commenters.
As I say, I think you point out something important about how humans conceptualize the world, even if I also think it’s not a self-consistent distinction, which is why I offer this other one that philosophers have settled on that I think you would eventually find yourself using as a framing for much the same purposes instead of this one if you were to think about it long enough.
People seem to be arguing against the concept as a bright line, which is reasonable, while I think of it as a normal distribution. Most people pay attention to both, out in the tails you have people that heavily weight one over the other. Likely due to path dependence in which sorts of signals yielded rewards early on in life. It’s useful for noticing confusion when two people are talking past one another about the intent of things. I very regularly run into people who have anti-babbler antibodies that get false positives on people genuinely using technical language for hard things and not as a babbler signaling game.
This seems mostly a special, human focused perspective on the fundamental distinction I’d make between the ontological and the ontic, phenomenon and noumenon, pointing at a thing and the thing itself, and indeed the map and the territory. That’s not to lessen the distinction you make, because it’s a different one that is more intuitive to humans because our brains seem to consider the social a separate magisterium from the “causal”, but I think it draws much of its power from this underlaying distinction between what is inside and outside the content of experience, and the ways in which your distinction is not quite cutting reality at its joints in the same way the ontological/ontic distinction does are well pointed out by other commenters.
As I say, I think you point out something important about how humans conceptualize the world, even if I also think it’s not a self-consistent distinction, which is why I offer this other one that philosophers have settled on that I think you would eventually find yourself using as a framing for much the same purposes instead of this one if you were to think about it long enough.
People seem to be arguing against the concept as a bright line, which is reasonable, while I think of it as a normal distribution. Most people pay attention to both, out in the tails you have people that heavily weight one over the other. Likely due to path dependence in which sorts of signals yielded rewards early on in life. It’s useful for noticing confusion when two people are talking past one another about the intent of things. I very regularly run into people who have anti-babbler antibodies that get false positives on people genuinely using technical language for hard things and not as a babbler signaling game.