you have called a tweet from me a Deepity some days ago and during the last days we have had a long conversation on this topic on Twitter.
I think, it will be a good idea to think about the possibility that Dennett was wrong in defining a “Deepity” as an attribute of one statement alone. I think, it is not possible to decide if one proposition is a deepity without considering its context. From the context we can derive the meanings of the notions used in the statement, and also the kind of sentence the statement belongs to.
But in Twitter, often, we have no context, even in our case. What is to do. We can try to fill the used notions with meanings in a way that the statement is not a deepity. We may consider that the writer of the tweet to some extend may use another language as we, having the same words but different meanings, and we may try to find this meanings. If not possible, we also are free to ignore the tweet.
In our case, the point was, I think, the meaning of the notion “world“. I think, in the tweet I replied to the word was used in at least two different meanings (this is no problem in everyday speaking, an so it is no problem in tweets). First, world marked there a part of the reality we are acting in. This part of reality is formed by people and, on the other side, influences the actions, believs, and intentions of people. I would suggest to call this part of reality actuality or factuality. (we have in German the nice word Wirklichkeit).
The other meaning of world the tweet I replied to used was something as the picture of reality (or of actuality) people have. This is often the meaning we have if we say “In my world”, “an artists world” or something like that.
I would suggest to use world only in the last meaning. However, if you think about the differnt meanings of world, maybe, you will see the problem of the statement in the tweet I replied to, and maybe you will understand the intention of my reply.