Our thoughts are products of our culture, tradition, and ideal of order, so their understanding and development can only be based upon them. However, cultures, traditions and ideals vary from time to time and from people to people, as each of them has been created and developed to respond to challenges under their own conditions. Consequently, they are not only independent of each other in their genesis, but are also incommensurable in their historical set, which equals to saying that they are not even classifiable but only taxonomisable in a strict sense. Each of us lives and interprets his own world: when we compare, we attempt at putting them in a common hat, knowing that no one can go beyond the symbolic paradox of “I interpret your culture through my culture”. A way out from this trap can only result from their individual parallel characterisation after we have built up some kind of abstract philosophical universality from the ideals of order concerned. Then, in the context of the Self and of You, we are expected not only to explain the Other, but also to recognise it by its own right. In its due course, legal comparison aims at getting knowledge not only of ‘law in books’ and ‘law in action’ but about what is meant by law when it works in our mind. Therefore, beyond the mere act of taking cognisance, comparison comprises also the acceptance of this Other by its own right, in which none is simply reduced to anything purely factual (“what is the law?”), but the actuality of the entire normative process leading to a legal statement (“how do we think in law?”) is considered. Getting to know foreign laws begins with grouping of laws and, as expressed in legal families, by combining those which are similar while contrasting the dissimilar. Interaction and mixing amongst them is a natural sequel, but their establishment cannot be a substitute to the didactic necessity and explanatory power of analysis in term of legal families. When describing them, mere contrasting shall be consummated by presenting the specific ingenuity of each of them as a characteristic individual feature specific to them.