You're making assumptions about the capacity of others that you dont really have the insight or evidence to support.
What people have learned can be skillfully implemented in order to communicate effectively about direct experience.
To assume that your fellow posters are incapable of this is an inaccurate and presumptuous assessment.
Be that as it may. To communicate about direct experience other than in the form of the effect (term, name) being taken as the cause (direct experience) is not possible.
It may however arouse the fantasy of listeners to talk about mere ideas that are not linked to direct experience and that may not even be experienced anytime in the future ... like e.g. "existence" and "emptiness".
typing typing typing.
Posts like this are nonsense.
When you refuse to appropriately communicate your ideas your posts become "mere" typing.
So-called existence, and emptiness are quite verifiable, through learning, contemplating, and practicing.
The learning aspect allows the practitioner to understand the direct experience as it unfolds.
The conceptual frameworks of Buddhist philosophy are a map, not the path in and of themselves. Using that map for practice and communication is a completely valid application of the tools at our disposal. Clinging to them however is a problem which can be easily observed by looking at late Tibetan polemics.