I apologise if I have offended you by not meeting the standards of "word-smithery" you expect in a discussion.
No need to apologise - I'm not offended.
Untill recently I never spoke what I thought and I just parroted what I thought I was supposed to say, behind this parroting I was developing my own understanding/intuition of things, I'm now making an effort to bring this understanding to the forefront/learn to speak what I really think/have intuited and this forum has become an avenue for me to do this - please recognise this is a learning tool for me to see what's going on in my and other peoples minds in relation to certain objects/concepts of meditation.
Okay - I can understand that. My previous post was actually aimed at helping you do it better.
You say I'm not using words the way they were intended, intended by who and what authority do they have?
It's not really 'intended', more 'agreed' or 'accepted' - my poor usage - sorry.
While you're talking to yourself, thinking things through, you can use any words you like - though I still think that using words carefully does help you think better.
When you are trying to communicate with others (e.g. here), your communication fails if you don't use their language. In particular, if your private meaning of 'art' and 'artist' doesn't match your readers' meaning of 'art' and 'artist', you won't communicate what you want to communicate. Is that good? Is it useful? Is it even good manners? Of course not.
Words are labels and transcending labels or the labeling part of the mind, I have read, is integral on the path to enlightenment.
That also is true. But at the moment, we're communicating, not transcending.
You say you're a music teacher, if one of your students learnt to play the piano using their intuition and developed a degree of competency they were happy with and, using their own language, called A-Sharp "this key here" would you tell them they are making things less meaningful by not calling A-Sharp A-Sharp like you think they are supposed to do?
No, but I would tell them it's useful to use the accepted names for the notes so that they can communicate with other musicians.
Have you read about the illiterate arahants or idiot-savants or other enigmas - there are other ways to arrive at competency then just through the absorbtion and adherence to convention.
True, but be careful that you don't confuse 'convention' and 'competence' and then reject the technical training which allows you to express yourself freely.
Adherence to conventions, in this case the conventions of a "language", as meindzai alluded to, is a burden - the dhamma also says stuff about rites, rituals, traditions, ceromonies, etc and how they're not worth following - this all ties in with the question I raised about ones attitude when engaging in the artistic process, I find an attitude that emphasizes convention to be inhibiting - each to their own I guess.
Chacun a son gout, as you say.
But if you want to talk about it - as you seemed to (you started the thread, didn't you?) - we do need a shared language.