I throughly disagree with such British disagreeableness!
Would French disagreeableness be an improvement?
The delopment and correct use of language is not a panacea for appeasing the masses.
No, but the development and incorrect use of language is, as Orwell pointed out.
Were this the case we would all still be living in mud huts and drinking fermented barley much like the English themselves.
I also disagree with the analogy that language is an attempt to progress the vague thoughts of mind to some form of precise expression. The mind may conceive of all manner of abstractions in terms other than oral or written language, that these are abstractions does not mean that such ideas are not completely formed. The struggle to present new ideas within a lingustic framework is not a fault of the mind, nor a poverty of language; it is the means by which language develops.
I think you are failing to recognise the symbiotic relationship between thought and language. Some philophers argue that our consciousness originates in language and depends on it. I don't agree, but it suggests that the issues are not as clear cut as you suggest.
As for the theme of this thread it strikes me as an appropriate starting point for a scientific understanding of theology in that it seeks to cast out preconceived convictions on the subject of theology.
I'd say that rational theology begins with the casting out of preconceived convictions on the subject of both theology and science, which is an improvement on the usual scientific starting point.
Scientific procedure would require constant evaluation of its findings until a new paradigm is conceived and defined.
So would theological procedure. This thread asks the question of whether such a procedure would lead us to conclude that this new paradigm must be apophatic in respect of the Absolute. I think it would, for much the same reasons that Kant, Bradley and Lao-tsu thought so.
If that's being disagreeable then so be it.