Language
Words, words, words. Our experience is limited by language, but in some ways is extended, too. Through language, we can, in a broad sense, communicate with one another about concrete and abstract ideas. This is accomplished through shared symbols. But these symbols can be misleading, and ultimately limit us.
For example, if I were to say ‘dog’, the image of a dog may appear in your head. But that’s what I assume - some people may conjure up a different breed of dog than what I am thinking of, or may think of something entirely different that may or may not relate to the concrete presence of a dog. (Not the best example to use, but it illustrates the issue of shared concepts nicely).
Outside of that example, we communicate to one another through these symbols and do fairly well. Even with different languages, if those languages are translated into another, they share most symbols and are ultimately understandable. There are many ways to say: “I love you”, “sky”, and “earth”, just to name a few.
The thing is, we do share these symbols, but they only relate to what we have experienced. If we were to try and name an abstract unknown presence, then we struggle to describe it. If something were beyond our understanding, how could we relate? You can see such problems in religious texts. The unknown is limited to how we can describe It, and we are then forced to downgrade the idea into a structure that is more relatable outside the self (and therefore to other people). This creates the new concept of whatever It is, and can from there be corrupted into forms different from itself - but it still has the same name. Or the symbol becomes the concrete - a good example is money.
This is a rather large topic for me to describe adequately, so there probably are inconsistencies and errors in my logic, but bear with me here. I’m not that great at expressing myself.
