why "fiction affects reality" doesn't work on a language level: a thread

disclaimer before we start: i'm not here to argue. we've seen many threads talking about the psychology of it but i wanted to share the linguistics aspect as well. i may use wrong terms since i don't study in english, but principle remains

so, it's important to note that the basis of every language are words. each word is made up of 3 things:

the symbol (aka the word--the entry you see in the dictionary. for apple, "apple" is the symbol);
the reference (the idea of what the designated object is);
the referent.

the referent is the real life object, which is what both the symbol and the reference usually refer to.

now, the reason fiction cannot possibly represent someone's real thoughts is very simple: referents and thoughts/references are different.

i'll take nj as an example.

this is nj. here, nj is the referent. he is the real life object that we seek to refer to when we say his name.

this is the thought of nj. in other words--the reference. it is NOT real life nj, but rather a fictional representation of him that is meant to refer to him.

this is the symbol. it's the word we use to depict the reference and the referent. note how the triangle has a different line between the symbol and the referent. that's because symbols usually are connected to the reference, NOT the referent.

for example, if you use the word apple, it will designate a generic idea of an apple, and not the specific (real life) apple you may only yourself know, and that's usually how language works.

now, how does that apply to fiction, and more specifically rpf?

fiction cannot attain the referent level. it will only ever refer to the THOUGHT of it (aka the reference) because you cannot know enough about the reference to depict it with exactitude, nor +

is it possible to attain the level generally as long as you distinguish between fiction and reality. for example: writing mafia aus about the boys. the boys are not mafia bosses = their mafia boss version is not them = it is the thought of them = reference only.

to be clear, the symbol is the only shared characteristic, and the reference isn't necessarily meant to depict the referent accurately.

because the real life object is different from its reference (fictional concept), they are two different things.

basically, fiction is about a non real life concept which shares the same symbol as a real life one but are not equivalent nor conflated.

this also applies to "morally wrong" concepts, which are often explored in fiction not because it is the author's desire, but +

because it is an healthy way to do so, and stories rarely reflect real desires.

for example, everyone knows what th did to his father in hyyh is not a reflection of real life despite both referent th and reference th sharing the same symbol.

that's because on a language level, they are not equivalent, and therefore independent. everyone knows they are two different entities.

this applies to every piece of fiction, even extreme kinks or things that authors may not encourage in real life.

it's ok to write these things because they are linguistically separated from the real life concept even if the same symbol depicts them both.

the only exception is when people conflate both of them;

for example, giving the boys characteristics in fiction and +

forcing it on their real life counterpart which is why it's also important to keep boundaries as to not cross the border between the symbol refering to fictional x (reference) and real life x (referent)

tl;dr: it is wrong to say fiction affects reality/is based entirely on an author's beliefs because every word is inherently divided between the concept (fiction) and the object (real life)

again, not looking to argue but due to recent events i wanted to share what i specialize in, and i apologize if it was not clear because i did not learn this in english and the terms are different! ^-^