This is so interesting, A-G. It seems that people making descriptions so often forget that their descriptions are of something that will continue to "be there" regardless of whether it is described or not. The description is not autonomous; neither is it the equal of what it describes. I'd say, logically it never can be. Even in instances where it is completely "accurate," it is an approximation of, or a mental reduction of, something greater than itself, the existence of which does not depend on our thought process. But any description is only as good as how well and faithfully it correlates with the "actual object" it describes. FWIW.
Seems to me it is much too easy to analytically conceptualize autonomy which is not evidenced in physical reality. This may lead back to our discussion of language and thought on an earlier thread. Everything has context and all that...