I don't disagree with you, Polymirize. Science has advanced us greatly, and I would say that it is indeed dedicated to helping us see and understand the big picture -- but sadly, a lot of people seem to forget that science is a tool and a method, and instead regard it as a way of life (Have you ever heard someone proclaim that they believe in science rather than god?).

It's surprisingly easy to become convinced that these separations that science deliniates are real. It's the source of materialism, of the existence of separate 'objects'. It doesn't have to be that way, though; as you said, it's all a matter of definition (or lack thereof).

As for communication -- yep, you hit the nail on the head. For all the flaws of the English language, I'm not suggesting we abolish it, not by a long shot. But I think it's important to step outside of these symbols, to determine whether what they point to is really what we mean by them, and to recognize that there is great significance even in those things that we can't name and categorize.

We will probably never come to a complete agreement about what each and every word means (even though the dictionary tries to do just that), but I think continually questioning and redefining the way we think about certain things, though it sounds potentially confusing, is a step in the right direction for improving our communication.

I think one of the biggest problems with language in an official context is that, much like science, it's a bureaucracy -- in categorization and efficiency it excels, but when it comes to constant change, or less tangible matters (such as spiritual and emotional ones), it falls terribly short. Like I said before, the dictionary tries and often fails to bring us to agreement about what certain words mean, because human beings don't fit conveniently into one mold. Every person's experiences and perceptions about the world are different, so it's silly to expect every symbol we create to be compatible with every perception.