Muriel wrote:Brother: meaning is negotiated not replicated. The aim of writing or speaking is to set off a negotiation that will arrive at a shared meaning.
Muriel: Vagueness can create wrong or confusing meanings in your receiver's mind. They (vagueness) state the general idea but leave the precise meaning to the receiver's interpretation.
The nexus: The meaning being put forth by Muriel might not be known or accepted by Tycho hence communication from Muriel, to bring about an awareness of this meaning to Tycho. Tycho does not have to agree to it just has to receipt it.
1. @Muriel's assertion on 'vagueness' is thus out of context. Firstly, because it wasn't the subject of 'brother's' assertion. On the contrary, 'meaning' implies comprehension, precision and clarity. Otherwise if the subject was 'vagueness' 'brother' would have stated it.
2. I had to ask for the connection for me to see it, otherwise there was room for speculation left by your post, in relation to other posts.
3. Agreeing or disagreement is a matter of 'fit', and only this measure can prove 'receipt'. Otherwise even indifference can claim receipt, and indifference can't be part of communication.
4. Your assertion on 'vagueness' shows some ignorance on its usefulness even in language. Symbols are generally vague until when used in a specific context and intention. That's how a language becomes useful in all situations. Vagueness doesn't necessarily destroy language. Mostly, it nurtures development of language.
5. I can't say I have agreed or disagreed with the new idea you were trying to pass to me, even after using the book of Mark as an illustration. At most, I take it that you've described how conflict in communication arises- something that has happened in our posts, and in all forms of communication. How the conflict is resolved you don't seem to know, because a 'receipt' doesn't imply reconciliation or understanding.