Indeed, man is unique. His uniqueness is educed from the fact that the essence of his personhood is dynamic progress to maturity. By the moment we came into existence, perfect similarity of each of us is impossible. Probably, it is only a seeming identity. This is the first consideration.

Second aspect is our experience itself. Experience, in its proper sense cannot be shared by any one of us. It is not the event that transpires us. It is not the situation that we encounter. It is within while event is without. What we can share however, is the situations and the events which cause that inner thing - experience - to happen. There is no such thing as "common experience". Yes, we could have common situations, but what arises in each of us is a unique experience which one cannot transmit, in any medium even in words, to other party. I accept that we can share situations in life, but only up to that extent. Beyond that, it’s already a personal gift added to our being. This, no one can possibly take that. Yet, it happens that one party would honestly say : I understand you, I experience it myself. In a way one is right in saying this but this as I say from above, is only seeming not perfectly exact.

Somehow, there are some events that impress us most:: a gospel passage that struck us, or an event in our life that penetrates our inner being and leave us ecstatic. Even as we try to share this similar special event to others, we cannot even make them as ‘ecstatic’ as we are. On the other hand, the other party may even have the same events as we are, and yet, he has a different experience within him.

It is possible, however, that the deeper the person understands the other individual, the deeper the communion that binds them together. What I mean here is, when a person got the proximate experience of another person that’s the time their union becomes very closed. Thus, we can say, communion is the proximate sharing of one’s experience to another person.

We must realize, though, that deeper communion or ‘friendship’ in common language does not happen by mere organizing games or fellowships or parties. This is something personal and not to be found in man-made social structures. Nor does one must know that this does not just develop in parties or fellowships alone. What I say of the latter is that, they’re artificial and does not guarantee this intended effect. Yes, it’s true that organized parties, a form of sharing of events with one another could help develop into this outcome. These structures are not perfect guarantee to greater communion, as cause and effect. But most probably, the intended outcome might result in this way..

On the other hand, neither do we also expect a proximate sharing of experience without these structure. For, as we try to deny the direct relationship between sharing of events and genuine experience, we cannot deny on the other hand, the necessity of human structures in human relationship for making the sharing of proximate experiences possible. This is the most natural thing that we can find in our human life.