Internal and external

Hello, Michi. An interesting discussion has begun here . With your permission, I would like to continue it.
Israel
You wrote: “I tell people that they are wrong, in the sense that they are wrong in their understanding of themselves. That is, they themselves are supposed to admit the mistake after I explain it to them, and realize that they did not correctly define the concept they are using.”
“The question of whether poetry is an idea existing in the nature of the world or an artificial creation of humans (the question of the Platonic nature of the idea of ​​poetry) is not important to our concern here. I am looking for the meaning of the concept of poetry to which most of us refer, and in my opinion there is definitely such a concept and it has a meaning that can be explained.”
Ostensibly, according to Occam's razor, we should not assume the Platonic existence of ideas, when we should refer to "concepts" as you describe them here: "a meaning that most of us mean," "the concept they use."
I asked, then, why do you hold the view that there is an “external” existence for ideas?
Michi
I explained this in two sentences (second paragraph): Because of the principle of causality, I assume that if there is an experience within me, it has an external source (= the object that creates it). To the same extent, if there is a defined and distinct concept in my mind, I tend to think that it has an external source that generates it and from which I derived this understanding (this is a kind of anthropological argument).
Israel

Now a point has become clear to me: I also agree with you that there is a source and a reason for my experiences and concepts, but why “external”? Why not be satisfied with a source and a reason that exist “within” (not a Platonic existence)?
As I wrote, it became even clearer to me that, in fact, the concepts of “inside” and “outside” themselves require a definition (that will solidify their intuition). What is “inside” and what is “outside”? Why is it important to distinguish between them? And what does it matter if something exists in an external existence or an internal existence (this is almost asking what the meaning of the discussion is whether ideas have a Platonic existence or not)?

Michi

The answer in the question: ' external ' and ' internal ' does not refer to a geographical-spatial demarcation. The question is whether such a concept exists or not. If it does, but it is internal to me, it is still external in this sense.
The question is, do we invent the concepts or reveal them? Of course, if it is inside all humans (intersubjective), then it is more clear that it is actually outside.
Israel
I didn't understand enough:
1. On the one hand, it seems from your words that " externality " is determined by being . That is, if the concept exists , then it is outside (even if it is inside the person).
2. But on the other hand, you also hang it on the number of people in whom this concept is found. And that means that if it is only found in me, even if it is there, it is inside and not outside.
3. And finally, you hang it on the origin of the concept: is it invented by man (in which case it is called inside) or is it only revealed (and called outside).
Besides the fact that I am unable to extract a complete explanation from your words consisting of these claims, the details of the matter also require clarification:
To 1: How do we still determine what is there and what is not?
To 2: Apparently, the number of people is not a characteristic, but only a sign that I did not invent the concept (because it is unlikely that many will invent the same thing)?
To 3: How is it determined whether the concept was invented or discovered, since even if it were invented, it could be taught to someone who did not invent it (but rather receives it), and for him it would only be in the form of "discovered"? Should we go and ask the first person who coined the concept whether he "found" it or "invented" it?