In response to your apology, it is I who should apologize for bringing my buttons into our purely rational [sic] discussion. I was merely using emotional rhetoric to try and force you to see inconsistencies in your argument.

To wit: you must take a critical look at what you are doing. I recognize that you are a man on a unicycle, wishing he had a moped, but you still appear to be riding with your eyes closed. These thoughts that you are sharing with me, and ostensibly the world, I doubt that you share them with the world indiscriminately. I think that you are sharing them with me in the hopes that I will understand your plight. I do understand, but I have resolved it in a different way. This difference in resolution does not entail a difference (nor a deficiency) in understanding. An environmental difference is sufficient to account for it, I believe. Unless, of course, I have not expressed to you a sufficient level of understanding, for which you are welcome to ask.

You persist in ignoring the simple fact that we (e.g. You and I) are communicating on a meaningful level. I recognize that this is not, perhaps, the intuitive absolute that you dream of, but if language is the best tool we've got, then there is no reason to believe that any other device (pheromone exchange, for a crude example) would serve your goals any better.

The structure of your quandary seems to lay itself out like so:
1) You wish to experience frictionless, completely accurate, multilevel communication with another human being.
2) Because of the inexact, inexpressive nature of language, this appears to be an impossible task, at least while still using language as the medium of communication.
2.1) Language is confirmed as the best possible medium of human communication.
3) Thus, (1) is reduced to the cognitive and sensory appropriation of another person's experience, which violates various laws of physics, as well as being a rather psychologically lonely state.
4) You despair, but still hope to find "the appropriate person" with whom to attempt to experience the best-possible level of accuracy in communication.
5) You express this despair to someone who shares this incalculably painful hope. You expound upon the above four propositions at length, while she listens both patiently and impatiently.
6) You even go so far as to suggest that this transcendent level of communication might be possible with other individuals, with whom you have not shared this quandary in particular, which is perhaps one of your central quandaries so far.

I'd challenge you to find the faults in this enumeration, but that sort of conflict-driven debate is not, I think, to the point in this case. To close with a bit more metaphor, why would a man on a unicycle who wishes he had a moped ride off in search of others, who might wish to build tricycles, or yachts, or spaceships, when there are others in his immediate vicinity who have been standing around through this whole scene, quietly mentioning every so- often that a moped sounds like a keen and profitable idea?

Subtly and cordially,