Well,perhaps one can not essentialise the other to the point that the other shall  cease to remain the other for us.But political forces some times knowingly or unknowingly end up doing so.Even worse is the fact their "philosophy of understanding the other"is projected as an ideal that mankind,they think, has been striving for centuries.Hegel comes very close to inventing such an alleged teleological schema of understading the other.Gadamer would not support such a claim not withstanding his debt to Hegel.Perhaps the best we can do is to make sure that howsoever trivial the other's view may be he or she should be given a fair chance of representation.Gadamer has a beautiful phrase to capture this sprit:the soul's dialogue with itself.This also applies to the our dialogue with others.Our understading of the other may sometimes be hampered by our biases and prejudices but they also can be transcended by the more illuminating experience of the other.This "stablization of the context" does not need to be an "anything goes" kind of ultra radical remedy."Appropriatation" in Saurav's sense is inevitable but not immutable as being and becoming codermine man.I must submit that the "criteria" and rule following that Saurav is talking about,invoking Wittgenstein,is something we can hope for but not practice to perfection because of our finitude.