> Kate asked: > > > Can you explain what you think the boundary between seeing a thing and > > understanding it is and how clear that boundary is? > > I responded (in part):
> > 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. > > To which Kate responded: > 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. > > A newspaper is easier to read in general because the subjects of newsstories are seldom abstractions. "A crane toppled to the ground on West 65th street during the noonday rush hour yesterday, killing two pedestrians and the crane-operator." That's usefully "concrete", calls up loads of sense data (which are always initially non-abstract) , and so it's serviceably non-obscure. The more abstract the topics, the more room there is for multiple associations in the mind when one reads the subject words. When one USES the word, one often feels one has in mind only a single notion, that it's quite clear, and that the word summoned up to convey it does the job. Believe it: when you wrote about "understanding a thing", I had no sure idea what you had in mind. I gave several of the interpretations that came to my mind immediately. Now, either I was faulty in entertaining several possible interpretations, or you erred in believing only one idea should have come to my mind. In your response, you made no effort to describe your notion as you wrote the word 'understanding', so I have no further evidence that might persuade me your notion is clear, your word was adequate to convey that and only that notion, and that I screwed up in thinking you might "mean" anything else. ************** Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
