Your belief in the primacy of language in determining thought isn't original - it's been repeated and advocated for with extreme enthusiasm. You are not alone in accepting the idea uncritically.

With regards to science, here's an example, one of many of demonstrating that under conditions of scientific rigor, assertions based on this belief don't hold up to scrutiny. If you read the wikipedia page I linked you critically, I think you will find the general consensus of peer-reviewed studies is as I've described. Further, when it comes to science, evidence against an idea is much more valuable than evidence 'for' - this is related to the human cognition problem of confirmation bias, and the power of falsification to winnow valuable insight from bullshit.

I feel I've sufficiently justified my critiques of your neologisms, I don't feel the need to elaborate further. It's enough for me that the blindspot in your use of vision metaphors has been brought to your attention.

While I don't think your language design has practical application, I do think the questions you've raised about the extensive reliance of ability-based metaphors to communicate ideas would make for an interesting literary exercise.

I don't have much time to discuss this further, but I would ask if you choose to continue to advocate for these ideas, that you do it somewhere other than !anarchism.