In a message dated 7/24/08 11:12:10 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Can you explain what you think the boundary between seeing a thing and > > understanding it is and how clear that boundary is? > > > > The initial difficulty here is that you have faith that the notion arising > in > my mind when I read 'understanding' is effectively identical with the notion > > in your mind. > > In fact all sorts of fuzzy notion arises in me with that word. My guess is > that the notion in you is somewhat like what I'd label as "recognizing". A > shepherd in the Andes might see a cell phone and have no idea "what it is". > I.e. he > doesn't "recognize" it. He doesn't "realize" "what it is for", "what it > can > do". > > I might recognize it, but have no idea how to make it work. My ignorance > might prompt me to say I know what it is supposed to be for, but I don't > "understand" cell phones. > > Or I might know how to make it work it work -- the way, for example, I know > "how to use" a tv remote -- but have no idea WHY it works when I do this or > that. > > Notice: It isn't a question of what "understanding" IS; it's solely a matter > > of what you want to CALL "understanding". As soon as you ask the question > this way, you're on your way to trouble: "What IS "understanding"? IS it > recognizing? IS it knowing how to use? IS it knowing why it works?" > > Notice further that all these "understandings" are a matter of DEGREE. > > You are asking too much of these words. It isn't a complicated question and it isn't worded in an obscure way. At this rate you wold have trouble reading the newspaper, what with all the variable meanings that could be attached. Kate Sullivan ************** Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
