Emic and Etic in John Fire Lame Deer's Autobiography

I've still been sorting out the balance of emic and etic in my head. Something that's been on my mind is how familiar something that is totally unfamiliar can be; even something that seems profoundly emic to a particular individual might still be comprehensible on some level to other folks. The glaring danger, of course, is that the observing party is simply injecting their own ideas into that emic explanation, which is surprisingly easy despite unfamiliar concepts and language. Indeed, it is because of that unfamiliar language that it happens so easily: one can just gloss over the differences as one attempts to understand, and impose one's own frame of beliefs on the experience in question.

I've been thinking of it in terms of John Fire / Lame Deer's autobiography. There were a number of things which seemed so resonant with me. The vision quest, the rejection of a drug in pursuit of spiritual experience, even the breeding out of the magic of livestock; I feel deeply personal responses to what he says about these things, and yet, how can I be certain that I've really understood what he has said in his paragraph or two? I've never had a vision quest, I've never taken any recreational or hallucinogenic drugs, I don't really believe there is magic in animals, and yet, at the same time, I am inclined to say that I know what he is talking about, and indeed, that I feel quite resonant with him. His tirade against cleanliness and safety made my heart sing, and yet I still shower every day.

But perhaps I'm making more out of this than I need to, or taking the definitions of emic and etic too strongly. I'm really not sure. How can you know what another person is really experiencing? Etic language helps, yes, but what about those chords of resonance that come up even amidst the unfamiliar? Oh, questions, questions, questions...