We can communicate thanks to symbols and archetypes

Everything that man perceives is relative.
Everything that man perceives is subjective.
The representation of the world that the individual makes is strictly dependent on his perceptions on a physical, emotional and mental.
However, the perception of reality of an individual is different from the perception of another individual and it could be said that the representation of reality is completely, or to a large extent, different from one individual to another.

“If this is really the case, is communication between people possible? Is it possible that totally, or almost totally, extraneous perceptions of reality can interact with each other, or everyone lives in his own subjective world, in some autistic way, in which he carries on his life, actually detached from all the others? ".
Obviously it is possible, because otherwise we would not be here chatting.
According to the logical process, if there are portions of representation of reality that can be communicated, it is obvious that these portions are united by something, otherwise they could not be perceived in the exact same way by the interlocutors.
The question is complex and not obvious, an example: right now I'm trying to communicate something to you and I communicate it as well as io, within me, I represented it; however, I am not sure that you perceive it, within you, in the same way in which "I" represent it.
But if you don't perceive it as "I" represent it, then there is no communication!
We are talking about the possibility of communication between representations of reality from individual to individual and if I cannot communicate to you what I perceive - in such a way that you perceive the same way of perceiving that I have within me - then it means that this attempt at communication it is doomed to fail; at most there is a passage of data between me and you which are then processed in a completely different way from you and me.
And then, logically, we should review what we have said, because, at this point, there is no possibility of communication between two representations of reality.
It would seem - at this point - that the data of communication between one individual and another can pass, following the personal representation of reality, but the meaning of the representation of reality, which the individual attributes to his perception, would not pass.
This is what we have come to establish using the logical process.
But alas, the logical process goes as far as it can.

The fact is that the perception of reality is not made up of words; or, at least, it is not made "only" of words, but by a whole set of elements ranging from physical perception, to the emotion that the situation arouses, to the thoughts, to the logical concatenations that the situation moves in the interior to arrive at translate, within the physical world you are experiencing, your reaction to this representation.
Let us not forget that the individual makes a representation, but this is not static and an end to sé itself: it is dynamic, necessary and indispensable for man to be able to interact with the environment in which he lives.
At this point, you will rightly say "the child does not learn so much from the words that are said to him (or, at least - I say - not" only "from the words that are said to him) but from the observation of the behavior of those around him" ; and, therefore, from the "father-mother" or "brother", "sister", "grandfather", "grandmother" model to get to the cartoon which, alas, has very often taken on the role of father or mother in these times !
But, then, this means that, beyond this process of perception of reality that involves the physical body, the astral body and the mental body (or, to put it in more common terms: physicality, emotionality and the intellective), there must necessarily be some element, somewhere, which causes these "symbols" that are used to serve as a trait of union to the subjective interpretation of each individual.
It is evident that, whatever word you use, that word does not actually define the object as it is, but it is a convention, accepted by all those who speak that language, to define a set of elements that that term - by convention, precisely, by "symbol" - it comes to define.
It could therefore be said that what binds the subjective perception of the reality of each individual is not so much the set of elements that he perceives, but the symbolic meaning it gives to what he perceives.
Without going to look for “the feel"(Which certainly has to do with it), or the Akasic body (which has something to do as well) or the Absolute (which always and anyway has to do with it), we can undoubtedly say that communication is made possible by this set of “Symbols” that are more or less common to a more or less vast portion of every human group.
This does nothing but prepare the way to ask the next questions and get to understand what exists beyond the perception of reality by the individual; the answer, if one takes the right steps even following logic, without the need for acts of faith in holy men or great scientists, can only be to presuppose the existence of a part external to that commonly known by the individual, which act as a feature of union between all individuals and allow the circulation of a common representation that coincides with that of other individuals, at least in some points, in such a way that each individual can actually interact with another.
A pre-existing, pre-existing part created as a vibration - therefore the symbol is also a vibration - by those we have called transient archetypes or permanent.