Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I'm having a difficult time reading it as anything other than "what I'm saying is true by virtue of me making it true, because whetever the objection, it's defninition changes so that it is true." Or am I wildly mistaken here?

Or perhaps you're saying that these types of propositions are proxies for the brain states that give rise to them, and their expression is subject to infinite variety? But does this not imply that anything can mean anything? You can't make reference to the "meaning" anymore to ground the infinite expressability of a proposition, because it is exactly this meaning that is at question. Isn't the meaning exactly the thing that is supposed to be expressed by a proposition? So in other words, "i mean what I mean" is the meaning of any proposition, no?

Ignoring that for a second, no matter how you express "I don't want to go to the opera because it is boring", its correlary in the brain is nowhere to be found. You simply stipulate that it is true, even without having to "justify" this truth by the position of every quark in the body. Ok but why are you allowed to make this move? That isn't something you have explained, or am I missing something?