Witness the interpretations, schisms, that have surfaced over meanings in a text taken "literally" (that itself an impossibility) like the Bible.
Then imagine the heroic task of the historian trying to sort out and weigh the events and meanings of the past. John Crowley notes there is "more than one history of the world." In a world of "non-transferable personal meanings" we live today with almost 7 billion histories of the world.
What's the fundamental lesson for mankind here? We tend to try to make two different things (perhaps not so different) equivalent, or to be seen as the same thing, by an act of will, just by saying it is so. At this point we have left philosophy, proper grammar, and truth behind, and entered the world of Rove-ian spin-doctoring(I am waiting for the book: How Obama won the Spin War of 2008.) In this same form of philosophic waffling we try to say that a single thing is also "this, that, or something else (Clinton's famous "that depends on the meaning of 'it'")."
What is it that possesses man to take such positions absolutely? Isn't it better to say things are different, and that's ok, but they do have some interesting similarities-- and just leave it at that? Or is that beyond our ability due to some infantile need for complete acceptance, or our dark lust for blood? Diversity is good!