I suppose you are also aware that it very important to the meaning of the word you are pronouncing in Chinese to get rising tone the falling tone flat tone and falling/rising correct. (I recently started learning some chinese)
There are quite a few
tonal languages, including more in the Asian language families, some in the language families in Africa and North and South America, as well as others. Chinese is by no means the only language in which tone is
phonemic. I have often suggested that tonal languages require their speakers to develop more precise vocabularies for expressing their feelings, since tone is a major indicator of feeling in non-tonal languages.
Like I said elsewhere, I do not have much experience with dyslexics, and you yourself as a dyslexic are not a suitable source of information about dyslexia (because of the personal bias).
Would that mean that you are also not a suitable source because you are
not dyslexic? Bias works both ways.
Namely, these people sometimes develop a low self-esteem and a defensive attitude to communication altogether. Some learn to believe that they are "different" than others; sometimes, they believe "there is something wrong with them" for being dyslexic. I have personally known a few dyslexics who believed that. I think it was this belief about them being "different" and "something wrong with them" that made communication difficult for them, not their dyslexia.
A while ago I read an article saying that dyslexics make very good managers because delegation is second-nature to them. "Here, please read this 100-page document and give me a summary. Then I'll want you to write our company's response."
Pineal argued that words in themselves don't have meaning (which is just not true) . . . .
Perhaps what he means is that a collection of sounds is not imparted with meaning by nature, but assigned meaning by a community of speakers, and a different meaning by other communities with language structures that allow the same collection of sounds to be a word. E.g,
gift in German means "poison."
'Wonderland' seems a good metaphor for the world of words, IMO.
Not surprising, since Lewis Carroll loved word play.
The Lion kills the deer, Good for the Lion as it gets to eat bad for the deer as it dies. Therefore I interpret Good as 'for survival' and bad as opposite of 'for survival'.
Survival is Step One on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Step Two is
security.
The other side of Good is increasing or decreasing emotional happiness. However happiness is an attitude choice if Viktor Frankl is correct.
And Step Three is
love, Step Four is
esteem, and Step Five is
self-actualization (you can tell that not many of us have gotten that far because it's not well defined or understood

). All of these things are "good" for humans. Most lower animals are limited to Steps One and Two, although many social species of mammals and birds appear to also experience love.
Faith to me means immutable belief in a deity.
That is much too narrow a definition, especially in a place of science and scholarship. "Faith" is confidence or trust in the existence, ability, loyalty, reliability, etc., of a person or thing. Confidence in the existence of a deity is only one small example of "faith."
Another thing that disturbs me about the original sentiment is the way the rules of good writing ask us to use a different word so as get variety into the what is being said.
That's just one example of the difference between (formal) writing and speech. They are two different ways of using a language and they do not follow exactly the same rules.
One can use homo sapiens instead of human any time of the day.
Not really.
H. sapiens is narrowly defined as "modern humans." Neanderthals, Denisovans, Floresiensis, and other species more-or-less contempory with ours and descended from the same ancestral species are often called "human." In fact one of the sources in Dictionary.com includes all members of genus
Homo, including clearly ancestral ones such as
H. erectus or
H. habilis.