empty words

pre-script: i am very particular in my writing, as i aim to be in my speech. through anger and speedy rebuttal, one can say things--not necessarily that one did not mean, but that could have been better worded so as not to be misconstrued. i have dealt with such issues in my writing, and experience has also taught me that even with careful deliberation and thought given to words and sentences and arguments, meanings and purposes can be received in completely the wrong light. i have realized one explanation for this, and it is found in the biblical teachings on wisdom and folly. much, and enough, has been written on those, but my topic covers the former issue--the individual preferences of word-choice--and i will label it here as "semantics."

what i call "mauve, violet, and purple," someone else sees as "violet, purple, and pink" respectively. this is hardly an issue unless we're painting a room, but the concepts carry over to a literal world of different perspectives, and many more vital to relations, knowledge, and core beliefs. my earliest recognition of a word with alternate meanings might be understood from the following sentence: "i can do it, but i can't do it." this popular verb both enables and permits action, and this is the base for many conversations i've carried out in my mind. in such circumstances, it might be better worded as follows: "i'm able to do it, but i'm not allowed to do it."
a dictionary will do its part to show the many alternate meanings a single term can have, but i at least do not consult the book when encountering words i already [believe to] know the meanings of. and so i feel it is with other people. we have a preconception of what certain [and indeed the majority of] words mean, so that a written definition found in a times-specific book may provide a structure for meaning rather than an exact understanding for how one particular mind uses it. no doubt, there are many words that have but a single meaning and use, but my concern is with the countless others which have a relative meaning, and that dependent greatly on "context," which i'll exemplify to cover textual surroundings as well as personal usage.
the deeper one looks, the more confusing and important word-use becomes:

what i refer to as "alike," a friend might regard as "dissimilar," and what i would call a "replica," he might then call "likeness."

where i use "man," another would prefer to use "human"; the two are synonymous to me within certain contexts, though i understand the one can ring of sexism, and it is dependent as much on the writer as on the reader.

Einstein is purported to have defined "darkness" as the absence of "light" rather than its opposite, and "evil" the absence of "good" rather than its opposite. i have been taught similar maxims regarding folly, slavery and death. but to agree with any of them, one must share the understandings of what is meant by each key word: darkness/ light, evil/ good, folly/ wisdom, slavery/ freedom, death/ life, absence/ opposite. and even "share" carries a lot of weight!

"comprehension" is perhaps a more appropriate term to describe this form of understanding. words in themselves can hold certain definitions, but linked together can produce a more refined meaning; and a sentence deconstructed and then reformed by better or worse words can lead one to more or less understanding, that is "concept-sharing." and so, reading writ works to the extent of one's connection with the author. i, for example, can quite easily understand my own words, whereas another may need to read these sentences several times over, or even to consult another medium in order for "proper understanding" to be reached. such media may include other writings of mine, similar writings to mine, or a connection with my mind which may or may not be made through conversation.
and comprehension is key to the learning process, for the new cannot be learned without that vital link to what is already known. how can one know what "blue" is without first recognizing the color (or the emotion) and then learning the word? personally, the word "cramp" holds such an association for me: i had heard the word spoken of, but never fully knew what it was until i experienced one. perhaps i had experienced it before but never knew what to call it, and by that precise process each of us can form associations with different words, within concepts much more profound than a cramp or a spasm or a pulled muscle.

i have quite recently and very abruptly experienced the end of a long-lasting relationship, much to my own surprise and confusion, such that the happenings leading up to it and the reality itself are surreal. and i entirely blame semantics: our respective understandings of choice words that carry so much emotion that it's almost deadly to narrow them to a single word. compassion, love, concern. i have written on "love" before, to show--if nothing else--what the word means to me. if i speak of love, it is within that context and none other. if someone speaks of love toward or around me, it would be unwise to understand/ judge it by my own definition, but better to learn by what understanding they use the word.
but my words were taken out of context--of my understanding, of the conversation, of how i spoke it in my mind--and there was no room for forgiveness. the flaw of written word is that emotion is lacking. compare a play with a play--that is, the written work with the performance: drama does more than entertain; it allows for connection [with characters rather than names, people rather than words].
to "lean on one's own understanding," as it were, is to forfeit any knowledge outside of self--that is, one can know much about self and nothing else. to learn from a scientific article is to accept first that there is something you do not know. and so it is with a human being: to base one's knowledge of a person on preconceptions/ judgments is to presume there is nothing can be learned from that person's input; and if a person cannot teach on the topic of self, how can truth be perceived from any of their words?