Language seems to be charged with its emotional quality when it is actually articulated by the speaker. The words themselves express certain semantics that can be contemplated and analyzed somewhat objectively, depending on their emotional neutrality, and each word has a different charge of a different intensity, which varies when both utilized by the speaker and apprehended by the listener.
Things get really interesting when you have dialogue, and even more interesting when you have group conversation. You see subjects progress along with each speaker contributing in turn, which subtly alters the direction of the group's emotional current. The language of the conversation itself flows forth out of a collective mood that arises based on all sorts of social cues, body movements, voice intonations, evaluations of power and etc. Each speaker responds to the general direction of the current, the group crackling in a certain direction like a cluster of fire crackers. Then the conversation can take off in tangents when one or more of the speakers seizes on a word or subject and imbues it with the right amount of enthusiasm, pulling the rest of the group with them.
The logic of the conversation progresses like a fire: it must be fueled. Within the many feedback loops is a vitality that is nurtured with every enthusiastic reaction to a shared idea or thought.
It is always very difficult communicating everything one feels and thinks, as the instantiation of language to share those things necessarily amputates a vast amount of information and emotion, due to the fact that language itself can only store so much information, whilst all the rest is sloshing around in these brains of ours, waiting to be scooped out by these lingual vehicles to be shared. Additionally, one is necessarily constrained by the movement of the conversation itself, as well as one's own emotional constitution.
Understanding is possible. It just takes time and patience. What it requires is an encouragement among all the participants in the conversation as well as a willingness to give each participant the benefit of a doubt that he or she is earnestly trying to express him or herself. You get all sorts of subtle adjustments prefixed by "well what I meant to say" or "no not necessarily" or "yes, but" or so on. Collective understanding and agreement is revised on the spot, and each participant can more finely delineate their positions, and you eventually arrive toward this greater lingual extrapolation of what is all collectively in our heads.
Even at this moment, I feel that this has been a sorely unsatisfactory account in writing of whatever it is that just popped into my head. My mind is somewhat muddy from the previous night's intoxication, and though there was a detailed visual-based concept that came into focus, the actual task of converting it into a language that progressed logically was hampered by the weak firing of that portion of my brain. So then maybe there will be another time when I am in a better position to articulate the same concept, just in more clear language.
If we allow for this in everyone - and this is actually much more difficult to do than to talk about, since arguments can quickly erupt into heated emotion and at that point our adversarial circuits take over - we can have something approximating understanding. I've found that a lot of people have a fairly accurate intuitive grasp on daily reality, and that if you work towards an understanding based on that allowance, you can reach a decent agreement with a lot of different people. The trick is being patient enough not to let your emotions flare and declare the other your enemy. At that point, language is instrumentalized into a weapon or a point of leverage to best the other.
