Not-conveyed in carrying-across-language

"...Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking French. And I said, 'What the hell do you mean by that?' And he said, 'He writes so obscurely you can't tell what he's saying, that's the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, "You didn't understand me; you're an idiot." That's the terrorism part.'..."
-John Searle

(full interview here)

Even if we reject solipsism (so there is a world-environment we share, and I can somehow convey my impression of that world-environment to you), how can I make my thought so clear that you will, if not agree, see the forms and functions of my argumentation as I perceive them? How can I “check” that you’ve, in fact, “got it”?

I can’t. But we go on speaking and writing, trusting that the amount lost will be imbalanced by the amount conveyed - hoping, praying. Even though Derrida will say, “You misunderstood me,” even though Joan Scott will differentiate between her physical self and the construct of her that has been extrapolated from her writings, even though Judy Butler will disassociate from the fields that arise out of her works.

There are checks and balances, discussions and reviews, edits and comments. Understandings can become mutual, and our precises can resemble one another.

Even then...Three people read a treatise. Two agree with the general thesis: even if there is inherently an ‘objective’ world, as soon as humans begin to represent it {in stories, news, art photographs, histories…} the world-signs become signifieds. They assimilate connotations and compile constructs like poison quicksilver moving up a food chain.

But then the third opens his mouth. And he says, “As we see in this treatise on mythology, there can be an objective representation of the world.”

And I want to deride him for saying this; I want to storm and rage; but at a certain point I can’t break past the solipsism that is an individual’s interpretation of the text. Besides. Maybe I'm the one who's wrong.