I am trying to shed habits of thinking brought about by discourse on intentional beings.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
What agreed with in your first Lewis quote is precisely that we do not and probably cannot use an absolute concept of existence: to exist simpliciter.
We must always qualify it before chopping it out as a property.

In serious ontological discussions, the concept of existence is and must be used absolutistically.

"The concept of existence, however, cannot be relativized without destroying its meaning completely."

(Gödel, Kurt. "A Remark about the Relationship Between Relativity and Idealistic Philosophy." In Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, edited by Paul Schilpp, 557-562. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1949. p. 558, fn. 5)

Existence simpliciter is real existence. Fictional or imaginary existence is but pseudo- or non-existence, strictly ontologically speaking.

"[W]hat exists only according to some false theory just does not exist at all."

(Lewis, David. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell. p. 3)

Teuton wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
What agreed with in your first Lewis quote is precisely that we do not and probably cannot use an absolute concept of existence: to exist simpliciter.
We must always qualify it before chopping it out as a property.

In serious ontological discussions, the concept of existence is and must be used absolutistically.
...

I have to do some work but these serious ontological discussion to me are the grandest joke our minds ever played on us; so I don't have much use for the absolute form of exist and this thread is clearly about dispatching it.

Teuton wrote:
"[W]hat exists only according to some false theory just does not exist at all."
(Lewis, David. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell. p. 3)

"There is, e.g., the relativistic doctrine according to which Cerberus exists in the world of Greek mythology and not in the world of modern science. This is a perverse way of saying merely that Greeks believed Cerberus to exist and that (if we may trust modern science thus far) they were wrong. Myths which affirm the existence of Cerberus have esthetic value and anthropological significance; moreover they have internal structures upon which our regular logical techniques can be brought to bear; but it does happen that the myths are literally false, and it is sheer obscurantism to phrase the matter otherwise."

(Quine, W. V. Methods of Logic. 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. pp. 265-6)

Teuton wrote:

Teuton wrote:
"[W]hat exists only according to some false theory just does not exist at all."
(Lewis, David. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell. p. 3)

"There is, e.g., the relativistic doctrine according to which Cerberus exists in the world of Greek mythology and not in the world of modern science. This is a perverse way of saying merely that Greeks believed Cerberus to exist and that (if we may trust modern science thus far) they were wrong. Myths which affirm the existence of Cerberus have esthetic value and anthropological significance; moreover they have internal structures upon which our regular logical techniques can be brought to bear; but it does happen that the myths are literally false, and it is sheer obscurantism to phrase the matter otherwise."

(Quine, W. V. Methods of Logic. 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. pp. 265-6)

If one accepts that the relativistic doctrine and the absolutist doctrine are the only two ways we can go then yes, I will lean off into the absolute. But I don't accept the dichotomy and I wont have to lean too far toward what I pretty much believe is the only sensible case, lest something get clipped off!

Situational meaning is not the same as relative or context as LittleIdiot wants to have it. It doesn't cast all things in one way or the other. It is silent on these matters.

To say it again:

If you say the meaning depends on the situation you cannot then extract the meaning from the situation and say "oh then it's contextual and relative and absolute meaning is opposed". No! If it's the situation then you must have the situation. No chop, chop!

I think it's a matter of pragmatics rather than semantics. That there are context- or domain-relative uses of "to exist"/"to be there" doesn't mean that there are context- or domain-relative meanings of it. For example, in "Wookiees exist in the fictional world of Star Wars" and "Wolves exist in the real world" "exist" has the same meaning.