I believe that problems on this forum would be minimized if more users made an attempt to use clear language.
"Say whatever you choose about the object, and whatever you might say is not it." Or, in other wordsː "Whatever you might say the object "is", well it is not." This negative statement is final, because it is negative.
Alfred Korzybski
Not this, not this
Advaita expression
General semantics is a program begun in the 1920s that seeks to regulate the evaluative operations performed in the human brain. After partial launches under the names "human engineering" and "humanology,"[1] Polish-American originator Alfred Korzybski[2] (1879–1950) fully launched the program as "general semantics" in 1933 with the publication of Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics.
Korzybski's work maintained that human beings are limited in what they know by (1) the structure of their nervous systems, and (2) the structure of their languages. Human beings cannot experience the world directly, but only through their "abstractions" (nonverbal impressions or "gleanings" derived from the nervous system, and verbal indicators expressed and derived from language). Sometimes our perceptions and our languages actually mislead us as to the "facts" with which we must deal. Our understanding of what is happening sometimes lacks similarity of structure with what is actually happening.
He stressed training in awareness of abstracting, using techniques that he had derived from his study of mathematics and science. He called this awareness, this goal of his system, "consciousness of abstracting".
His system included modifying the way we consider the world, e.g., with an attitude of "I don't know; let's see," to better discover or reflect its realities as revealed by modern science. One of these techniques involved becoming inwardly and outwardly quiet, an experience that he termed, "silence on the objective levels".
Pragmatic Suggestions
1)
Thoroughly internalize that "
The map is not the territory"
Humans habitually confuse symbolic representations for the symbolized.
Examples:
A geographical map can never fully describe the land it represents.
A meditation theory can never fully describe the experience it represents.
An intellectual understanding of meditation theory doesn't supplant or do justice to the experience that the theory represents.
2)
Practice "Consciousness of abstracting"All abstractions are symbolic representations of nervous sytem events. Humans have the capacity to indefinitely make abstractions of abstractions. Be aware of the use of abstractions, abstractions of abstractions, and so on.
Illustration:
Korzybski called this diagram the Structural Differential; Kenneth Folk alludes to it
here. I consider the diagram self-explanatory, but I'll add that from a high dharmic point-of-view it's useful to recognize that we only experience the Object Level, and that the subsequent levels happen within the Object Level.
Optical illusions demonstrate a misleading representation of the Event-Process Level on the Object Level.
Example:
Anyone who's played the game Telephone understands the danger of abstraction within the first three Levels.
3)
Reduce the use of the 'is' of identity
Reducing the use of the 'is' of identity tends to reduce abstraction and encourage phenomological, empirical, and verifiable language.
Non-Aristotelianism: While Aristotle wrote that a true definition gives the essence of the thing defined (in Greek to ti ên einai, literally "the what it was to be"), general semantics denies the existence of such an 'essence'.[41] In this, general semantics purports to represent an evolution in human evaluative orientation. In general semantics, it is always possible to give a description of empirical facts, but such descriptions remain just that--descriptions—which necessarily leave out many aspects of the objective, microscopic, and submicroscopic events they describe. According to general semantics, language, natural or otherwise (including the language called 'mathematics') can be used to describe the taste of an orange, but one cannot give the taste of the orange using language alone.
Examples:
'That movie was bad' ----> 'I didn't like that movie'
'Your shirt is obviously purple' -----> 'Your shirt seems purple to me'
'The walls were melting' ----> 'I hit the A&P and then I saw the walls melt'
'___ is bad' ----> 'I don't like ___'
4)
Define terms clearly or use quotes around ambiguous terms
Often meditators use different terms for the same phenomena and the same terms for different phenomena. If you use an abstract word, specifiy a definition or use quotes around the term.
5)
Recast or encourage others to recast statements made on the DhOOthers can't experience your meditation for you. Posting in clear language with low levels of abstraction increases the likelihood someone can diagnose or help you, and decreases the likelihood you'll get in a baseless argument.
Examples:
Let's recast sentences with increased clarity.
Original:
'Daniel is an Arahat' or
'Daniel is not an Arahat' Recast 1:
'Daniel fits my definition of Arahatship' or
'Daniel does not fit my definition of Arahatship' Recast 2:
'Daniel fits my current definition of Arahatship' or
'Daniel does not fit my current definition of Arahatship'Recast 3:
'Based on my current experience, Daniel fits my current definition of Arahatship' or
'Based on my current experience, Daniel does not fit my current definition of Arahatship'
Original:
'An angel told me to burn my neighbor's house down!'Recast 1:
'It seemed like an angel told me to burn my neighbor's house down!'Recast 2:
'I remember that it seemed like an angel told me to burn my neighbor's house down!'Original:
'I've been meditating for 5 years.'
Recast 1:
'In the last 5 years, I've meditated.'Recast 2:
'In the last 5 years, I've meditated 2 hours a week on average.'Original:
'DhO is an echo-chamber'Recast 1:
'It's my opinion that DhO is an echo-chamber.'Recast 2:
'It's my opinion that some members of the DhO constitute an echo-chamber.'Recast 3:
'It's my opinion that some members of the DhO constitute an echo-chamber. By echo-chamber, I mean ...'Original:
'This forum ...'
Recast 1
: 'People on this forum...'
Recast 2:
'Some people on this forum ...'
Recast 3:
'Based on my experience so far, some people on this forum ...'Original:
'I reached nana ___'Recast 1:
'I think I reached nana __'Recast 2:
'I think I reached nana __, because ...'
Original:
'I had insight into ___ 'Recast 1:
'I think I had insight into ___'Recast 2:
'I think I had insight into ___, because ...'Original:
'Yes, I read MCTB'
Recast 1:
'I read MCTB __ times, I last read it __ ago'Recast 2:
'I read MCTB __ times, I last read it __ ago, I remember __ of it, and I understood __ of it'Original:
'I exist as a separate entity'Recast 1:
'It seems I exist as a separate entity'Recast 2:
'Currently, it seems 'I' exist as a separate entity'Clarification, like abstraction, can happen indefinitely. Use common sense to determine what degree of clarification is appropriate.
Currently it seems to me that our tendency to confuse symbol with symbolized is related to our tendency to fabricate the illusion of a separate self. If I recall correctly, Alan Watts took this position also.
I hope you found this useful.

Further reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_prime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski