@Rob
I'm really trying to figure out what he's trying to get at too. I get the importance of finding the right word to describe the thought in question but at this point, it feels more necessary to address why a word would be more suitable than any other. He's said that "good" could have meaning even if there were no such thing as bad. But to me, there is no reason to describe anything as "good" if good is all there is. The very use of the word describes an aspect of something in relation to something else. Bringing additional attention to the state of experience that cannot be anything but what it is, whatever this thing or experience could be, it seems like it would be the least interesting thing or experience in the universe.
I'm really trying to figure out what he's trying to get at too. I get the importance of finding the right word to describe the thought in question but at this point, it feels more necessary to address why a word would be more suitable than any other. He's said that "good" could have meaning even if there were no such thing as bad. But to me, there is no reason to describe anything as "good" if good is all there is. The very use of the word describes an aspect of something in relation to something else. Bringing additional attention to the state of experience that cannot be anything but what it is, whatever this thing or experience could be, it seems like it would be the least interesting thing or experience in the universe.