Ok I see the misunderstanding. No, I’m not looking to push for direct experience instead of concept. Rather, I’m attempting to pin down the sources of concepts. When I speak of generalizing, I’m talking about understanding the gist of a notion. I believe there’s something that related terms have in common – that will ultimately be simpler. But I do not wish to go too simple. An example of too simple would be going straight to logic. Another example of too simple would be using a glossary definition. How many conversations have you been in as I have where time has been spent trying to pin down the perfect word with the perfect definition to describe something – a notion – a concept – that really doesn’t require that much pinning down in order for communication to continue. I could go the direction of inventing new words to describe the concepts better – instead of using metaphor I could call it something else. I could define it. I could require each participant to use the term precisely as I lay it out. But I’d rather not go that route. Ultimately I’m shooting for specific answers that are accurate. But to do so, I’m attempting to “zoom out “to get a broader view – find connections that might be out of sight when getting stuck on process details. Once we can see eye to eye, then we can zoom in further. So, it is a misunderstanding – I’m not arguing for direct experience versus concepts. Rather, I’m looking for the underlying concepts and their sources – for example, perhaps 1/2 as a concept has its root in the folding of paper – I don’t think it does – although it could – but it might. Is my direction a little more clear to you? I’m still figuring out how to explain this properly as I go along – this is why I sat on some of the work I’ve done for so long – I had no idea how to adequately explain it. I still don’t. But, this is progress. Each interpretation from a different perspective – like yours – helps me clarify my own position both for now and if others have the same types of questions.