[MD] -elitist ideas

[Case]

[Arlo]
Pardon me if I'm not overly worried about "dictionary definitions". 
Just because the status quo approach to "value" over the years has 
been to make it a human subjective experience gives me no desire to 
keep using the word in that way when given a metaphysics that posits 
"value" (Quality) as the fundamental source, prior to subjects and 
objects. Besides, we're not talking "Latin" here, our language should 
be flexible and adaptive, not rigid and restrictive.

[Case]
When I was a lad riding around in the back seat of the family chariot
listening to the grown-ups chatting in the front seat sometimes their tone
or the fact that they started spelling things out suggested that there was
something they knew but didn't want me to know. The suspicion grew that
perhaps I only thought I knew what they were saying when they spoke
normally. What if the words they were using meant one thing to children and
something entirely different or even opposite to adults.

Having since become the parent of small children I know today that my
suspicions were correct. Adults do speak of things that children do not and
often can not understand. Others throughout history have overtly done the
same sort of thing. The Pythagoreans, the Gnostics and  the mystery cults
explicitly talked in code or conducted secret rituals. The first century
Jewish philosopher Maimonides claimed that there was a common understanding
of the Torah and a deeper meaning available only to the wise. Leo Strauss
claims the Greeks were all speaking in a secret code that can only be
translated by neoconservatives.

We can bend and twist words to mean whatever we want. I can still recite the
Apostles Creed if I sit down and think hard about it for a few minute before
beginning. But what is gained through this effort beyond sheer obfuscation?
Is there a shortage of adequate words? Must we redefine and coin phrases to
make our statements intentionally less clear? This looks to me like a path
that leads to Essentialism...