Principle 3: Presume that the images and words you use are universally understood, and accepted.
If the person to whom I am speaking does not understand me, then it's my fault. It's my responsibility, as the transmitter to communicate the message in a way that is acceptable to the ears (and hopefully the brain) of the receiver. (It's the same theory as digital radio!) This doesn't mean I change the message: it doesn't require a dumbing down, nor does it result in a patronising tone that 'talks down'.
Communication of any sort requires a sensitivity to, and engagement with, the language, beliefs, values, ideas and priorities (the culture) of the receiver. But communicating cross-culturally requires all this plus imagination and effort - it demands a seeking after dynamic equivalents. That is, identifying images or forms that will carry the meaning of the message in a way that is both acceptable to, understandable by, and representative of the other culture - without destroying the original intention of the message, (which was also presented within a specific culture and context).
It is sheer arrogance and selfishness to demand that a receiver put aside their individuality (all that makes them unique) so that they can understand my message and before they can be acceptable to my community.
The burden of relevance is mine as the transmitter: I must take the time to understand the receiver as an individual, a person worth knowing; I must make the effort to be creative and imaginative: then I can know that I have communicated with integrity and with passion. Then I can know that I have delivered the message - the response is not mine to control!
