We're in agreement for the most part although using different terminology and concepts in some areas.
Indeed. So glad you pointed this out. I've dealt with language as an instrument and medium most of my life, and one truth about language (including the conceptual structures it manifests) rings out clear in the realm of communication. Language, as an instrument for communication, requires correlation, as well as overlap, of definitions. While two English speakers may think they share the same language, and on one level they do, on another level, they each have unique languages for understanding and describing the world they encounter and think about. The meanings that different words, ideas, expression have for them are very often unique in some way, given the unique nature of the individual's experiences.
Thus, it is more often the case than not, that the development of communication and a commensurate development of mutual understanding requires the work of building a common 'language' between the people engaged in the communication. What A means by 'hope' is not always what B means by 'hope', and it can change easily depending on the context either uses it in.
Sometimes that common language is there, but it can often happen that two parties think they mean the same thing with a particular word or expression, only to find out that they in fact mean quite distinct and different things.
On the other hand, different terms and expressions, and even different conceptual structures, can and at times do, refer to the same thing or point towards the same reference point. Recognizing when that happens is sometimes an important step in the sharing process. Also, sometimes, it can be that elements from this angle and that angle, as expressed by different terminology or concepts, can be the very things that help augment each other and move the development of a common map forward.
Reciprocity is by nature the most powerful dynamic of the universe.
Wow. Literally, wow. So interesting.
Indeed. So glad you pointed this out. I've dealt with language as an instrument and medium most of my life, and one truth about language (including the conceptual structures it manifests) rings out clear in the realm of communication. Language, as an instrument for communication, requires correlation, as well as overlap, of definitions. While two English speakers may think they share the same language, and on one level they do, on another level, they each have unique languages for understanding and describing the world they encounter and think about. The meanings that different words, ideas, expression have for them are very often unique in some way, given the unique nature of the individual's experiences.
Thus, it is more often the case than not, that the development of communication and a commensurate development of mutual understanding requires the work of building a common 'language' between the people engaged in the communication. What A means by 'hope' is not always what B means by 'hope', and it can change easily depending on the context either uses it in.
Sometimes that common language is there, but it can often happen that two parties think they mean the same thing with a particular word or expression, only to find out that they in fact mean quite distinct and different things.
On the other hand, different terms and expressions, and even different conceptual structures, can and at times do, refer to the same thing or point towards the same reference point. Recognizing when that happens is sometimes an important step in the sharing process. Also, sometimes, it can be that elements from this angle and that angle, as expressed by different terminology or concepts, can be the very things that help augment each other and move the development of a common map forward.
Reciprocity is by nature the most powerful dynamic of the universe.