>>10895907You should, however. You see, thing is, words don't convey notions. Words denote them. As in any theory, a worldview is comprised of primary notions and of derived notions. Primary notions are unexplainable and ultimately based purely on your past, abstractions over sensual experiences your mind has somehow produced. Derived notions are defined through primary notions in whatever ways.
You only imagine through what you lived.
You can only imagine what you haven't seen through what you have.
There are, of course, analogies. Maybe you haven't seen QUITE what your person in conversation has, but you have seen something similar enough. Maybe. You'll never know for sure just HOW similar. But among what you've seen SOMETHING is bound to be the most similar to whatever is whoever you speak to apparently trying to express. Question is, is that "most similar" "similar enough". And the answer is, you'll never know until you somehow verify it through direct experience.
And good luck imagining whatever nobody has ever seen.
Star depths in particular.
