Sensation+Reflection=Understanding

I am what I have experienced. My experience is what I am. I cannot be, or think of, anything more than the body of my experience. When I put down those obvious statements in words, it really doesn't surprise me at all. I have no trouble accepting the epistemology expounded by Locke. It's so fundamental, it's so true, there is no room for doubt in the soundness of his theory. But there is a troublesome implication attached to it: if the limit of one's knowledge and therefore the whole of mental contents is bound by his experience, how can two people of radically different life experience ever actually understand each other? We all face different opportunity to receive sensation and possess different capacity for reflection. Then, understanding and acceptance of anyone is bound to be provisional and we should never lose sight of this fact. Say, a true friend is who really understands you and accepts you as who you are, but is it even possible given what Locke said? The contents of your experience is yours only, and what you can hope for anyone else is the best possible approximation of understanding, if not in its pure sense. The difficulty doesn't stop here: how could I convince any person to initiate Japanese cuisine and appreciate the greatness of sushi in Tokyo if the conception of munching raw fish insurmountably gets in the way?

We all form ideas using the concrete experiences at our disposal and arrive at understanding/misunderstanding of the world. I can try using as many words as I can muster and still completely fail conveying the sense of miracle I intend to propagate if the audience has no clue of the happiness a food can possibly accomplish. Idea is the object of thinking. Experience really is the boundary of understanding. I'm really stuck here, the challenge of understanding and accepting things that are outside of imaginative limit. Does anyone feel the same way?