0131 Wine is the nectar of the gods.
That is my opinion.
0132 My opinion starts as a social construction.
0133 A perspective-level socially constructed reference2c brings the actuality of a bewildering experience2b into relation with a content-level originating reference2a.
The normal context of the nectar of the gods2c virtually brings the actuality of intoxication2b into relation with a glass or two (or three?) of wine2a.
0134 My label, reference2c constructed2b on a reference2a, turns the bewildering experience of intoxication into a contiguity between the perspective-level naming of “the nectar of gods” and the content-level encounter with wine.
0135 When I say, “Wine is the nectar of the gods.”, the verb, “is”, actually points to the bewildering experience of intoxication.
But, look up the definition of “is” in a leather-bound dictionary. “Bewildering experience of intoxication” is not listed as one of the definitions of “is”, except in so far as the intoxication is a state of being.
0136 So, what happens when I meet my philosophical friends and state my opinion?
The conversants assume that I am making a statement subject to sensible construction.
0137 What does one of my philosopher friends reply?
“How can wine be the nectar of the gods?”
Yes, the logic of secondness includes the laws of contradiction and noncontradiction.
0139 Any defense can lead to only one conclusion.
I am drunk.