Freud, Nietzsche, Barthes, and so many others regarded language as dangerous. The Freudian slip, the transvaluation of values, the semiotics, in short, the meanings that follow, leap and sneeze from the spoken make clear the danger that exists in language as an expression of what one wishes to communicate.
To communicate is to express. Communication can have two aspects: expressive configuration of what is lived, or artifact created to convey what cannot be expressed, either by physical distance or by the parameters established for communication. In the second case - as an artifact - communication is the vesture, consequently, it is a hiding place of what needs to be revealed.
Communicating is neutralizing distances, even if these are used. The neutralization of impediments requires constructions, generates projects, intentions.
To express what one experiences is to reproduce thoughts and perceptions through language (gestures, drawings, paintings, speeches, and writings). All reproduction is a copy, as well as originals may be identical to the copy. What sets them apart escapes their expression. When Heraclitus says that all is the realization of opposites and thinks of the movement of shooting with bow and arrow, in which the backward movement is what allows the propulsion of the arrow, he speaks of the direction sought as contrary to the movement performed. The backward movement, the bow support, is what allows the shooting: the movement of the arrow. The greater the opposition, the greater the realization, or yet, the greater the organization of what is expressed in words, for example, the greater their consistency.
Communication is always engendered; however, it must be remembered that engendering or building is shooting, bringing forth. Due to the intervening variables that allow its expression, the spontaneous is not always legitimate. Experiencing intimacy, meeting what stands in front of us, dispenses representations, explanations, there is no distance to be filled; it is perceived without prolongations of thoughts, without words, drawings, and gestures.
When communication refers to what has already passed or to what is thought to happen, memory - the return to the past - creates the coming-to-be expressed in communication. In this sense, communication is always denotative. That is why it becomes dangerous, misleading and demagogic. Related to the present, it is descriptive, pleonastic, moving further its denotative function. Being onomatopoeic gives it the dimension of instantaneous expression of experience, and it is from this that it is constructed as a sign, as referenced signs, and thus Babel is created both in the universe of languages and in the individualized scale of meaningful experiential expressions.
By apprehending and describing the meanings of thought - prolonging perceptions -, experiential rescues are made possible for narratives, stories to be shared. Therefore, to communicate is to create parameters, concepts and contexts that allow encounters or hide misencounters.
The narratives are true the more lies are neutralized, the more it is expressed and the less it is communicated, in the sense that they are told regardless of who is listening. Reports are descriptions or tools to reach and co-opt the other. To communicate, one must be integrated with the communication, almost becoming the communication itself. Only then does it cease to be a bridge, an artifact, and becomes to unite the separated, the distant.
In the arts, sciences and philosophies, when methodological concepts and boundaries are coherently established and structured, when thoughts are an extension of contextualized perceptions, when there is integration between the communicator and what he/she expresses, communication reveals.