Upon finishing the reading, I stumbled upon a specific preoccupation with language as a mode of data transmission between individuals. It is mentioned in the reading that communication faces problems at three levels – the technical, semantic and effectiveness levels. Particularly in the third level, the author describes meaning as ‘received’. It occurred to me that the knowable substance of the message transmitted is never actually received by the receptor, but rather created out of one’s interpretation of the discrete symbols henceforth presented. The two meanings, original and affected, that arise from possibly the same communicated message deviate from each other as much as, for example, how a park looks different than the other if the two individuals were each asked to visually imagine one. It is highly unlikely, in the case when two minds are prompted with the same stimuli that they should conjure up the same concept. Nevertheless, it is these important limitations that we have so chosen to ignore, by our tendency to communicate meaning as-is. We use words as if they carry absolute meaning even if consciously we admit that we don’t. If a world of absolutes exists, we would not have needed to place boundaries indicating where one thing starts and another thing ends. Considering our minds as a product of the universe, it is ironic that such a tension between the human need for categorical thinking and the inseparable continuum of data of the universe should arise.