> What you are saying is that because we have a map then we know the terrain. No. What I'm saying is that having a map is better, way better than having nothin

> What you are saying is that because we have a map then we know the terrain. No. What I'm saying is that having a map is better, way better than having nothing and resigning to even try because by definition is imposible to attain 100% of the terrain with the same level of detail as the real thing in a piece of paper that you can fold into your pocket. > This means they are (by definition), impossible to model or explain with words. > A description (in this case words), is not the actual thing. Using your example, we can spend days describing love and write millions of pages about it, but that is a very different thing than actually experiencing or feeling love. You started talking about describing something, now you want to switch to talking about "the thing". Obviously describing a thing is not the same as the real thing. Is your argument that the thing is ineffable or is it that the description is ineffable? > This means they are (by definition), impossible to model or explain with words. > it just means that it doesn't have a universal "true" meaning for everyone and that it cannot be fully understood unless it is experienced. So which is it? Or is the definition of ineffable too, ineffable?