Understanding

[Physics131]

I haven't gotten a chance to read all of this, but one thing that came to mind as I read the first two paragraphs is how we look at things through a binary lens: understanding vs misunderstanding. Would we have more understanding of the matter at hand if we looked at this binary set as two extremes of a spectrum?

no worries.
I think that while understanding and misunderstanding are part of knowledge, both of them are extreme points of the spectrum defined by knowledge.
But that is not static in my understanding.
I think that the way how knowledge is able to be interpreted depends on the content of the knowledge.
That means that the knowledge can be binary, spectrum or even both, which is defined by the knowledge itself.
This inverts the principle/question of how something can be interpreted.
But the question I have now is if I do not evade the question with a too generic answer "it depends".
I have some arguments for it but I try to keep it short.
(Only haveing arguments, does not mean that they would be plausible tho)

For me these rules dictate an understanding of the incomprehensible. If one changes the rules, one changes the understanding. Which implies that the incomprehensible was never understood in the first place.
One should not cling to these rules as set-in-stone, because then an understanding is merely an overstanding. Overstanding, as in the unwillingness to expend the energy to understand something.

Yes I agree, that is something which was proved when I tried to add the rule, that context matters.
It could also happen that the ruleset will always be unfinished or the semantics if all or any or a combination and order of the rules is important in order to identify something.

As possible thought, I am thinking about if the rules itself depend on the content of the knowledge.
Meaning that the rules could be created dynamically based on its content.
Similar to how knowledge could be interpreted (binary/spectrum/..).
But the rules are unknown of something which is unknow itself.
Makeing it undefinable like this from my understanding.

To move away from rules:
And I am unsure if it would be possible to define a formula, like kant did with his kantian imperative, to identify knowledge.

Currently, as in with my current set-of-rules, I have come to the conclusion that our Mind simply is unable to understand the incomprehensible. That we are observing a reflection of our own consciousness and are trying to make sense out of it with our Mind.

Yes I agree, that would imply the neccessarity to have rules as well for the incomprehensible.
Or If none of the rules grab, then something is unknow.
But that would not solve the root cause.

Some of my thoughts:
We can never know something which is unknown for us in every possible aspects.
We can not know something whos concept/abstraction/name/intend/meaning/.. is unknown for us.

But when the conceptual knowledge is there:
I think we can only know what we do not know without being able to know it currently in detail.
As example, I know that I do not know how to build bridges.
When I would know how to build bridges in detail, it would not be unknown in detail anymore.

Side note: How well (spectrum) I would be able to build bridges would define how stable the bridge would be.

This leads me to another idea. What if understanding (and misunderstanding) is more of a felt sense than anything else, considering that the internal relative experience is the same when we misunderstand something that we claim to understand and when we claim to understand something we likely do understand.

Interesting idea.
What about the felt sense is the result or effect of mis-understanding.
The question I have now is if mis-understanding can occur without experiencing this sense.

 

[Voidmatrix]

think that while understanding and misunderstanding are part of knowledge, both of them are extreme points of the spectrum defined by knowledge.
But that is not static in my understanding.
I think that the way how knowledge is able to be interpreted depends on the content of the knowledge.
That means that the knowledge can be binary, spectrum or even both, which is defined by the knowledge itself.
This inverts the principle/question of how something can be interpreted.
But the question I have now is if I do not evade the question with a too generic answer "it depends".
I have some arguments for it but I try to keep it short.
(Only haveing arguments, does not mean that they would be plausible tho)

Aside from everything that makes "knowledge" problematic, could we not say that knowledge too could put on that same spectrum (if it is as we define it)?

A chicken sexer doesn't understand how they sex chicks.

What about the felt sense is the result or effect of mis-understanding.
The question I have now is if mis-understanding can occur without experiencing this sense.

This can come down to genera selfl awareness. We interpret things from our other senses incorrectly all the time, this "sense" wouldn't be any different. One can feel they understand but when under verification can be shown to have misunderstood, and one feel they are misunderstanding while they actually have a better grasp than they think.

One love

 

[Physics131]

Aside from everything that makes "knowledge" problematic, could we not say that knowledge too could put on that same spectrum (if it is as we define it)?

Yes that is a very important point.
It seems like I have been juggeling with the terms.
Although understanding and its opposite misunderstanding share "something" with knowledge, each of them are very different.
I think I should seperate this terms more strictly and think twice about what I want to write.

Have to think about this actual question.

A chicken sexer doesn't understand how they sex chicks.

LOL, seems like the chicken sexer example is a very popular one.

This can come down to genera selfl awareness. We interpret things from our other senses incorrectly all the time, this "sense" wouldn't be any different. One can feel they understand but when under verification can be shown to have misunderstood, and one feel they are misunderstanding while they actually have a better grasp than they think.

That makes sense.

This is all one big misunderstanding then.

As I have been juggeling with the term it was more my misunderstanding then yours.
I still have to learn a lot and I am very sorry for causing this misunderstanding.

There is always the 'third' option, the one that isn't.

When we would talk only about knowledge, I think the third option makes sense.
As things can be known or not known.
But there is also the third option which means something like "currently not defineable".
Some Statements about the future are one example I learned so far.
Like "it will rain today in one year". That is not true, not false because it is unknown.

 

[Physics131]

And I am unsure if it would be possible to define a formula, like kant did with his kantian imperative, to identify knowledge.

(This is unrelated to mis-understanding and references my reply where this were not strictly seperated)
With the help of chatGPT I was able to recall that the kantian imparative works only because it is contextless.
But what GPT made clear was that, as knowledge always requires context, it is impossible to create such a formula.
It also suggested that it would be possible to create some sort of meta-framework for knowledge.
But this exceeds my current understanding and it is notpossible for me currently to apply that.

 

[rkba]

sorry for causing this misunderstanding.

No need. I was actually referring more to Life as being one Big misunderstanding.

For me understanding, knowledge and perception are so narrowly interconnected that they may be as well synonymous. I dropped a lot of preprogrammed rules and everything started to become interconnected in a way.

The future and the past are sort of non-existent, as time is an illusion created by ourselves. We only have the Now, for as far as our perceptions allow.

 

[Voidmatrix]

So here we've seen that one can know and not understand and one can understand and not know.

When we would talk only about knowledge, I think the third option makes sense.
As things can be known or not known.
But there is also the third option which means something like "currently not defineable".
Some Statements about the future are one example I learned so far.
Like "it will rain today in one year". That is not true, not false because it is unknown.

Something that is neither true nor false can either be nonsense, and in a way, meaningless (though we could dance with Lewis Caroll about making sense from nonsense), and/or a paradox, which vsn still be "meaningful."

Examples about the future highlight issues even in the present. It shows that moat of what we claim to know is likely probabilistic and not definite.

One love

 

[Voidmatrix]

No need. I was actually referring more to Life as being one Big misunderstanding.

For me understanding, knowledge and perception are so narrowly interconnected that they may be as well synonymous. I dropped a lot of preprogrammed rules and everything started to become interconnected in a way.

The future and the past are sort of non-existent, as time is an illusion created by ourselves. We only have the Now, for as far as our perceptions allow.

Likely because we think we have certainty

As you can see they are very different as shown in this thread, and rhe nuance of difference is of vital importance paradoxically.

I think that may delimit the past and present too much. The past lead to this present moment, and the present moment will lead to the future. There are many implications to consider.

One love

 

[rkba]

As you can see they are very different as shown in this thread, and rhe nuance of difference is of vital importance paradoxically.

These differences are based on sets of rules and these rules are by no means 'set-in-stone', as far as I am concerned. At the moment I am re-examining my pre-programmed perceptions/rules/knowledge and adjust them as I see fit based on what my Body 'feels'. For me this seems as a necessary step in order to close the gap between the Body and Mind. Who knows where this will lead, I do feel a degree of freedom and happiness that I seem to have lost many decades ago.
I'm basically looking for my own specific bearings that fit my Body best, so I can recreate my own map.

Being lost in the weeds is not a bad thing, the weeds can give us bearings if we learn to 'listen' to what they have to 'say'. Perhaps the weeds will tell a story that can lead the Being to a previously 'non-existing' option, an option that fits its Heart better. That's why I am trying to use my Body-Self as the bearing-guide while the Mind-Self will have to sit back, observe and collect data. With enough 'data-points' the Mind, the thinker that it is, can be convinced to let go of some of the control, freeing up happiness and shedding anxiety. In a sense most people on this forum are seeking guidance from plants with the intention to adjust their perceptions in order to remap their journey called Life.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Well yeah, the rules being definitions, which depict concepts.

One love

 

[Physics131]

Sometimes I don’t know what I should actually think.
Then I wonder if that’s even the right question, whether the attitude I feel is the one it should be, or if what I hold is merely a conviction about something.
If it’s only a conviction, I then ask myself again if that means it’s certainly not the attitude I want to have, and therefore not the one I should have.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Sometimes I don’t know what I should actually think.
Then I wonder if that’s even the right question, whether the attitude I feel is the one it should be, or if what I hold is merely a conviction about something.
If it’s only a conviction, I then ask myself again if that means it’s certainly not the attitude I want to have, and therefore not the one I should have.

That's how you develop good philosophy.

Keep it up!

One love

 

[rkba]

Sometimes I don’t know what I should actually think.
Then I wonder if that’s even the right question, whether the attitude I feel is the one it should be, or if what I hold is merely a conviction about something.
If it’s only a conviction, I then ask myself again if that means it’s certainly not the attitude I want to have, and therefore not the one I should have.

That, for me, is one of the reasons I'm trying to develop a 'secondary' evaluation system. One that is not relying solely on thinking, but one that's relying more on 'feel'. But I'm repeating myself.

Anyway, I think I know how you feel .

 

[MAGMA17]

Nice topic!

Sometimes I don’t know what I should actually think.
Then I wonder if that’s even the right question, whether the attitude I feel is the one it should be, or if what I hold is merely a conviction about something.
If it’s only a conviction, I then ask myself again if that means it’s certainly not the attitude I want to have, and therefore not the one I should have.

Well, some might say you shouldn't think at all.

I say that the important thing if you are looking for something is just to do something about it. They say that it is by making mistakes that you learn, right? So simply continue to search, and if your path is that of understanding certain things, you will see that you will cross it. It doesn't matter whether the question is right or wrong, but that you ask it.

That, for me, is one of the reasons I'm trying to develop a 'secondary' evaluation system. One that is not relying solely on thinking, but one that's relying more on 'feel'. But I'm repeating myself.

Anyway, I think I know how you feel .

Very interesting, I would like to hear more about this. Have you already written something more specific about this? Have you read any books that helped you? Sorry if you have already indicated it somewhere.

It is a bit like the approach that many artists have to work. When you create it is really an impulse that you feel, it is the body that tells you that it is the right thing to do, not a reasoning of the mind. You feel that it is the right thing, and that's it.

 

[rkba]

I would like to hear more about this. Have you already written something more specific about this?

Just some thoughts presented in various responses scattered around on this forum. It is sort of a flowing concept that is probably not going to let itself being 'pinned down', because that would be counter to its essence.

But it comes down to that there could be a split in our Being between the Mind and the Body. Where our initial programming (society) is such that we heavily rely on only the Mind to perceive the reflections that we observe and guide us through Life. Whereas the Body has been delegated to follow and is sort of ridiculed out of the picture.

Since I have been noticing this, I have started to wade more and more into the weeds of the Body's interpretations of the World. However, since I have never really been taught how to 'listen' to the Body, I'll have to learn the 'listening'-part first. Not so easy, or maybe easier then my Mind makes me think. Thinking is part of the Mind, whereas 'feeling' is presumably more the language of the Body. So if I start thinking about what I may be 'feeling' I need to stop the thinking process and just 'let it go'. Not so quick, says the Mind!

What might I gain from this? No idea, but this is my World, which is created by myself, so, to me, it seems worth exploring.

Funny part is that I have come to North-America, decades ago, due to a misunderstanding between my own future plans and the institution that, at that time, ran my life. Curious how the World around yourself forms based on misunderstandings. But then again, as we have just discovered, Life can be seen as one Big misunderstanding. Curious, because it landed me precisely where I 'needed' to be? Mysterious.

The book I'm currently reading, "Braiding Sweetgrass", is very in sync with the weeds I'm currently wading in.
The "Teachings of Don Juan" is another that make you Body skip a Heart beat and your Mind tell you: Nonsense!
"The Falling Sky" will indulge you into a world so far apart from our perceptions that Singular Reality becomes somewhat like; it is there, but it is also not. Like the Spoon in the movie The Matrix.

 

[MAGMA17]

Thank you for this clear explanation of your view!

Since I have been noticing this, I have started to wade more and more into the weeds of the Body's interpretations of the World. However, since I have never really been taught how to 'listen' to the Body, I'll have to learn the 'listening'-part first. Not so easy, or maybe easier then my Mind makes me think. Thinking is part of the Mind, whereas 'feeling' is presumably more the language of the Body. So if I start thinking about what I may be 'feeling' I need to stop the thinking process and just 'let it go'. Not so quick, says the Mind!

I think that even just doing this type of analysis, that is, characterizing the interlocutors of our being and feeling, is already a very beneficial exercise.

The book I'm currently reading, "Braiding Sweetgrass", is very in sync with the weeds I'm currently wading in.
The "Teachings of Don Juan" is another that make you Body skip a Heart beat and your Mind tell you: Nonsense!
"The Falling Sky" will indulge you into a world so far apart from our perceptions that Singular Reality becomes somewhat like; it is there, but it is also not. Like the Spoon in the movie The Matrix.

Thank you very much! I really think I’ll check them out.

 

[Physics131]

I am thankful for every single reply as every reply provides informations which should be considered.
But I also need some time to process everything in order to integrate and rewire my own perspectives.
Thank you very much!