Languages are useful tools for communication.

I think of languages as words and a set of rules on how to arrange these words: vocabulary and grammar.

Communication using language is based upon the following idea:

The Sender formulates the thought using language (encodes it), the code travels through a certain medium, and the Receiver hopefully associates with it the same thought the Sender had in mind (decodes it).
I assume for the sake of simplicity that the medium transfers the code without errors.

This is the idea: beautiful, simple and elegant.

The first problem is that you can express only a small part of what IS - you lose information in the process of coding your thoughts.

Let's have a simple example: "A girl is wearing a blue shirt."
Which girl? Where is she? Which shade of blue? What else is she wearing? How does she exactly feel? What is everyone else doing?
We can't find out of this sentence.

(In fact, even the most long-winded volumes of text are fractional and incomplete in relation to the Wholeness of the multiverse.)

Your response to these questions can be "Who cares? I'm not interested in all that stuff. All I wanted to know is that there is a girl wearing a blue shirt and nothing more." And that's okay if you don't need more complete information; using language in this case is satisfactional.

On the other hand:

Let's say we have the sentence "Look how nicely this plant grows!" and that you would like to have all the information on this plant's growth. If you look at it from the outside you can gather tons of descriptional info (especially if you are a botanist), but even if you know how the plant experiences growth, you would not be able to tell that to another person using language.

Words are not the experience itself. Information is not just coded, but 'compressed' too, resulting in loss of information.

The second problem lies in the code-decode process: I think of something, say it, you hear it as I said it, but it means an entirely different thing to you.

For example, take word 'Love'. When I say 'Love' I think of a sense of complete freedom, limitless choices and being All. 'Loving others' means conveying this sense of freedom and limitless choices to other persons, healing them, empowering them, being One with them.

Contrary to this, when most people hear the word love, they think of
10-20% or less unconditional Love lost in 80-90% of fear (addiction, jealousy, limitations, powerlessness, etc.)

As you see, the two ideas of love are almost antonyms of each other if viewed from the plane of Duality.

In order to minimize this problem, make an effort to define the words you use as precisely as possible, or if this is not useful in a particular conversation, try to use them as the person you talk to defines them.
It's likely that he doesn't have a clear definition in mind just something jumbled up from traditions, customs and experience; tread with care.


Let's sum it up in order to get a clearer picture:

There are two problems to language as we know it, the first lies within the limited nature of language itself and the second lies in our non-unified use of language.

We can somewhat reduce the first problem by introducing new words and phrases, or applying new meanings to old ones.

For example, I like the word 'simulflow' introduced by Frank Herbert as it is a nice descriptive word for non-linear or multi-linear streams of thought/awareness/state of mind. People adopt new words or phrases easily if they fill a lack.

We can solve the second problem by knowing what we are talking about.

You have surely noticed that instead of a single word I sometimes use a multiple word slash structure; like energy/will/self or I/You/God. That's how I try to avoid strict formulation required by the use of language. Strict formulation is useful most of the time, but less accurate if adequate words don't exist or if there is a lack of experience to provide meanings to words which already exist.