[Hank Kerchief]

And so they thought long ago, and called it being, or Being. But obviously the dispute is not in saying reality is, but rather to know what it is. Rhetorical sadness and rhetorical knowing is not the problem. It is understanding what it is. Meaning is the problem, not being.

What does, "Meaning is the problem, not being," mean? We know what existence is? We know what reality is? What else do you want to know?

"Meaning" pertains to only one class of existents, concepts. We sometimes use the word more broadly, in a rhetorical way, to refer to the, "significance," or "interpretation," of things and events, but no "things" have "meaning," not even that "everything" we call existence.

Hank

[cornelis]

What does, "Meaning is the problem, not being," mean?

Meaning is the order of things. You gave an order of existence when you said existence precedes human cognition.

There are two basic orders to existence. One, the relation or meaning of the parts to the whole. The other, the relation of a thing to its end.

[cornelis]

but no "things" have "meaning,"

You are being rhetorical, I presume. The negation is as meaningful as the affirmation. This too, was Aristotle recognized.