The blind that lead the blind

When historians take up their pens they hope their interpretation of events will give the reader a balanced view of the past. What they do to dead men is not a great deal different to what academics do to the living, they articulate their prejudices and beliefs through the artifice of 'presentation'. Their canonical authority is based purely on the volume of woffle they can cram into a single piece of work.
If we are to use as our starting block the first law or premise, which is that every spoken or written word is the effect of imagination and the cause is unknown, the phrase 'the blind leading the blind' somehow rings true.
Dialectical materialism belongs to this dimension of blindness, in which dialogue always seems to be sucked along by an undercurrent of an a priori belief in the authority of abstract words that have no visible, verifiable, observable truths to support their rampant use, let alone providing any meaningful definition.
Take the pronoun 'me' for example. Can any brave fellow dare to define what the meaning is of this word when applied to ... well .. me?
I've not met any two people yet who can agree on the absolute definition of the word 'love'. Yet, it is the most heavily used word in arguments about life, death, and the non-existence of God.
Many words like these that defy definition are used authoritativey in arguments supporting social programs all around the world - all in the euphoria of 'academic' research, while other 'programs' run by the same ilk cause social decay and destruction.
The blind cannot see even the most fundamental truths about the sanctity of life because they haven't clue as to what defines a 'life'.