I do believe that I was able to derive the gist of what she had in mind - and I would have probably tried to respond and left it to her to correct me - or I would have asked her to clarify as Luc did of you to clarify her terms - rather than giving still another sermon as you did
My interpretation would have been that she was asking my views on whether there was a divide between seeing a thing and being able to comprehend it and then if that division a hard and fast one in that is it possible to comprehend something without experiencing it or are the two intrinsically bound together. My response would have been that cognition is more complex than that and that without some degree of self-reflection one might not even be aware that they have seen something I will leave it to Kate to determine if this in some manner reflects her inquiry "Can you explain what you think the boundary between seeing a thing and >> understanding it is and how clear that boundary is?" > > I claimed her request was fatally ambiguous, and no lister who read it could > come close to conjuring a usefully clear idea of what Kate had in mind.
