Jacob, the subject of this topic "seemed" to be the difference, if any, among the concepts of respect, honor, and dignity...

ROSIE, I started the essay RESPECT AND HONOR saying,

"This subject for D-SP analysis came to being on the wake of a specific request from a member of Delphi, who claimed in the #truth forum that I was replying to her postings without due respect for her basic dignity. Seemingly, the subject should be Respect, for 'basic dignity' is an ambiguous expression, the intended meaning being, the respect any person deserves irrespectively of his social status. (See: LINGUISTIC COMMUNICATION, and CLARITY OF LANGUAGE.)"

Disregarding this clarification, Rosie, I continue our interdialog:

...However, it didn't end up there. As a proponent of using words in the way they were meant to be used, I will certainly agree that there are basic differences in meaning among the three words afore-mentioned.

1. Respect: There is a connotation to "respect" that gives the word, if not a negative, at least not an entirely positive meaning. In fact, I may shy away from a person because I "respect" his prowess with the pistol that he carries always. Countries must "respect" each other's boundaries, or war ensues. We must "respect" the law, or possibly find ourselves incarcerated...

Certainly there are nuances to many words, making for ambiguity. That's why I wrote some essays on the need for unambiguous language, and even redundancy, to avoid misinterpretation.
I would not say that I respect a pistol-carrying person; I would say that I fear him. I might admire his prowess, but I would always respect him as a person, disregarding my disgust for any wrongdoing on his part.
To respect boundaries means to avoid transgressing, which is punishable, not only by international law, but also by the aggrieved party.
Disrespecting the law actually means acting against the law. Only the legal apparatus is entitled to prosecute the aggressor, except in cases of attempted or executed physical harm.

...2. Honor: There is a mystic level to the meaning of this word. It's a word imbued with great emotion. And yet its meaning is difficult to state clearly (as are the meanings of all such words --love, hate, etc.). I certainly understand honor on a visceral plane, but I find it difficult to define. I know that people have died to keep their honor or that of another unsullied. I would be interested in your definition of "honor."

I wrote, "...the following commandment determines that parents be the object of filial respect. (The word in Hebrew means both to respect and to honor, that is, dignifying.)..."
I should now add: the word in Hebrew --kavod-- probably derives from the original word used to denote cleaning a place and making order in it, which could be construed as relating to it with 'respect.' Kaved means heavy, meaning important, as contrasted with light or unimportant. The liver, being the great animal organ, at least in the abdomen, is also called kaved! By some linguistic quirk, to respect came then to represent the considering of a person --or a law-- as of significance, so as not to soil it. Even today, one has to use circumlocution to clarify the intention: "I respect you," means "I respect and honor you." But you say, "I expect you to show respect for me," thus avoiding the undesirable, "You should respect and honor me."
In other languages, 'honor' became clearly differentiated, acquiring also what you call a "mystic" nuance. Yet, clearly, to kill or die for 'honor' means, to keep a value unsoiled, in the prescribed order. On account of the semantic connotations, and particularly associations, the word honor --when used not in a lyrical composition, but in linguistic communication-- ought to be dealt with in an unambiguous way, or else eschewed. Thus, it is not a matter of how I define 'honor' but of how my partner in a dialogue defines it. For dialogue purposes, therefore, D-SP demands avoiding lyricisms.

...3. Dignity: This is almost entirely a human characteristic, although some would imbue certain of the animal world with the trait...

It is an entirely human construct. How can a non-H. sapiens comprehend such a nuance?

...Dignity, on the level I understand it, is an innate sense of "how" one should behave in all circumstances, and the consequent refusal to act in any but the most exemplary way --no matter what transpires. The manner in which dignity is perceived is, of necessity, a function of the culture in which it is exhibited. It embodies the most admired traits in a society, and the concept of dignity is, I believe, viewed positively by all societies. It feeds my ego to be "honored" --it affirms my strength to be "respected," it nourishes my soul to have my "dignity" recognized.

Very clear! But again, in a dialogue, the word dignity ought to be avoided, as 'metaphysics' should too. Saying, "You have affected my dignity," or, "Act in a dignified way," might become a contentious expression. Not so, "I dislike your way of writing to me, so, good by!" Or, "I find your expressions offensive." But to say, "You affect my basic dignity," is not contributor to dialogue, especially when followed by something like, "Please keep writing to me."