"Communication" and "Language"

Sometimes it feels as though reading an intricate theoretical essay such as these is a metaphor for the communication theories themselves. I remembered Nietzsche's writings on the very personal nature of experience and meaning could be applied to what's going on with the authors referencing other theorists.

(Paraphrasing and oversimplifying here), Nietzsche says that each of us have a unique experience which informs meanings for us. Without being "in somebody else's head," one can't ever know the full extent of another person's experiences and how they shape meanings. So, instead, we all settle for using language. Language is essentially collective metaphor. Our words are a stand-in, and short-hand for a general experience, not a specific, personal one.

Not having read all the same works as these authors, I did some research to try to understand the depth of meaning and language codes they used in referring to the various other theories. (So, some of the reading was pretty slow going, when they didn't define concepts as extensively.)

However, I did find the majority of the examples and diagrams to be useful tools to help understand the concepts.

I'm wondering about the concept of 'signifiers and signified,' in Cary Wolfe's "Language." Are we to understand that the conceptual and phonic differences mentioned there relies on the Platonic 'ideal forms' concept? If each thing is part of a chain of references where concepts are separated by degree of difference, it sounds as though the starting link of the chain would need to be the ideal.