If someone said to me that the variety of human experience, even of a shared event or phenomenon, was unlimited I would very likely assent, having some understanding of their sense. But I would just as likely watch to see if there might arise opening for a sophistication to this, an adjustment that might seem either a trivial quibble or an argumentatively subtle distinction: however large the number of  variants there might be, I would require that another aspect be attended to, by which I mean acknowledged and valued as salient; in all its wonderous variety human experience is bounded and constrained by what it experiences. Since you and I are human and not fish, we will not experience water as something to breathe, though the fish cannot be expected to experience it as otherwise, if it experience at all.
The astronomical but finite is fundamentally different than the unlimited and infinite. If such distinctions are of no interest then we are willful in our misapprehension and therefore perforce irresponsible in our activities; to any who are not so flippantly cavilier with their beings this is presented by every instance of the mundane moment.
"I have been forced to recognize that the most important ingredient in creating [a psychological climate in which the client could undertake these functions himself [sic] -- exploring, analyzing, understanding, and trying new solutions] is that I should be real. I have come to realize that only when I am able to be a transparently real person, and am so perceived by my client, can he discover what is real in him. ... The essence of therapy ... is a meeting of two persons in which the therapist is openly and freely himself and evidences this when he can freely and acceptantly enter into the world of the other."
Two Divergent Trends
Chapter V of Existential Psychology
edited by Rollo May

I can see no reason why we cannot generalize this understanding and apply it as the standard of healthy community, where each gains directly from authentic presence while benefitting from that authenticity's effect on others. Only in a commoditized public and private realm would what we see so routinely take over: adversarially engaged in a zero-sum game where one gains by the other's loss, we deny ourselves in order to deny others; for the other to be weakened, needy, and dependent is seen as adventageous ... all of this at the level of common sense. That the conventional is quite mad is evidenced by the fact that this self-destructive cynicism, while contradicted by such old saws as "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face", is not likely conscious, and is defended as though sanctified if ever it becomes so. What should quite reasonably be the role of the social has been abstracted and displaced into the therapists' chambers, ensuring a steady trade for those few and an ongoing generalized degredation for all. 

A side-note: those who would see themselves empowered as leaders are careful not to enter into relations that would empower or enable those they see themselves leading; the personas they develop and adopt serve, on one hand, as uniforms that distinguish them from mere groundlings (also useful for identifying themselves to those with similar inclinations) and, on the other, as scripts that diminish the likelihood of their straying into authenticity under the influence of benevolent circumstances.
ben aka WillowBear