Linguists and philosophers seem to regard as universally that meaning is common or at least ought to be so unversally originally, othewise, if positive degree could be diminished a little, at least they think it should be so.

However actually, in our daily usage, meaning is not always universal, never yet, e.g. there were two ones there and one believes in justice e.g. around legitimacy toward something, as one legal settlement or so and another is to it as the terms of legal common sense could never do in it. Then necessarily two ones are in very remotely differentiated common sense, or ideally regarded ideas, these are necessarily concerned with law abiding concept or so either.

In other words, to some extent, around each item, having agreement and concensus or not so, necessarily latter one is being hesitant at doing so, probably from the beginning, the one must be so, that example shows that meaning by itself must be completely differentiated at least around law or legal order around these two ones, however, necessarily, law, legally regard regitimacy or so as themselves independently identical to both two ones, as grasping around these substance, nevertheless, to them, each one must have mutually very differentiated acceptance, that part is so crucially important at this debetable subject.
Because if these things clearly divided as subjective idea and objective one, how can we convince us that nevertheless mutually confidence at regarding that law itself, anything around objective viewing could be identical? How can we understand mutually gapped stance so confidentally?

In other words, from the beginning, to any item, or that meaning, essentially we'd never share unversal meaning by itself so surely, together couldn't we?

E.g. law, regulation, legal justice or so, as so essentially rudiment concepts or so from the beginning, each one has own and necessarily mutually never sharable meaning and grasping gap might have been existing strictly (for the present, mitigated expression could be appropriate, you know.)

Nevertheless, we usually try to hide that fact so unconsciously, or autonomosly in reaction to any unnecessary working out to us, generally in our own daily life, you know, we just try to escape from that e.g. asking thing by anyone instinctively, you know, of course, occasionally very intentionally doing so to guard our secerecy.

And, at the matter of fact, that gap between true mind in awareness to own personal identity and publicly regarded manner around saying opinion or so, mutually in discrimination in autonomously miblized our idea and mindset.
These mutual gap, or kind of ditch, crevasse at subjective mind dragging conservatory hiding in public, that mind or socially practical idea or so and subjectively conceived it in harsh discernment must be present in mind to anybody, probably, necessarily to anyone, shown attitude and own mind keeping immanent idea as very honestly conceived subjective mind nor idea, that fierce division could be rooted more objectively at inhenretly implanted religiously identical or substantially ultimate personal credo, but either that belief is so objectively regarded only in our own mind, at least these are personally comprehensive idea abiding it.

In other words, meaning gap must never be only habitually gapped in custom or so, not context abiding it, neither, you know.

Because, e.g. when we personally face one regulation, legally ordered common sense or so, each one's own credo abiding stance in mutual difference is never accidentally e.g. in terms of educated memory inclined mind, even in only the one's personal history, even at any environment, conclusively just so personal according to each identity.

Moreover, originally, we mutually at any term, or dimension, essentially very harshly gapped remote reality could indwell at each mind.

Probably that essentially conceived stance difference makes us each conservative, libral, sympathetic, or contrarily antagonistically antipathetic, otherwise, optimistic, or pecimistic, each unexpectedly clearly divided at our own mind, necessarily never dividable ideas could adjoin with those, but obviously very divisible items and not that them could be there mutually contacting, that reality is kind of very convincible truth in our daily reality.

Rather, for mystifying these tragic truth, we'd continued to settle universality, so intentionally.
Nevertheless, that truth could be applied either to concept or notion, around happiness, correctness, signification or so.
And those things could drag our own serioiusly kept inner gap held in deeply conscious mind, kind of between publicity and privacy, or lawfully fixed value and subjectively regarded personal idea in sensed hard ditch, crevasse, or so.
(to be continued)

Jan. 26th.     2022

Appendix; Necessarily, these items could not be concerned ethnicity, race, gender, nor generation, or so. 
Philosophers, linguists are apt to regulate meaning's publicity so intentionally for their own establishing of own academic theory, but we usually, have no intention around these things and items our mind must be noticed so consciously, not like general academitians.
Only there's difference around generosity toward that gap, between namely publicity and privacy at each country('s historically present conventional and cultural gap).