Knowing is very different from understanding, which makes knowing you
understand this tricker then you know.
Tell me why it is that you can not tell me anything that I do not
already understand?

---

Request for Question Clarification by pinkfreud-ga on 30 Jun 2005 11:46 PDT

You have placed a handsome price on this question. I'm sure there are
Researchers who will be glad to take your money and offer you a pile
of fluff in return, but if you'd like a good, thoughtful answer that
is appropriate to your needs, it would be helpful if we had a clearer
idea of what you're seeking here. Are you looking for theories on the
origins and/or meaning of knowledge?

---

Clarification of Question by airspace-ga on 30 Jun 2005 13:54 PDT

I take it you mean like the pile of fluff you sent me to read? Now I
understand why you need clarifiation, you don't understand
understanding. You at least understand, "I know nothing by way of
everything I know can change tomorrow." I am sure you also understand
that a intelligent person does not ask a question they do not have
some semblance of an answer to. So I again have presented 2 questions
I have some semblance of answers to. You want my money by giving me
long in depth accounts of someone elses understanding for an answer.
sorry don't need it or want it. The answer is not long, show me you
understand by using your own words and I will pay. If you are asking
for clarification of this question then I beleive you cannot now
answer it. Hopefully you will soon be able to. By the way, there is an
answer to my other question.
 
This is the only clarification I can give for this question. "Anyone
of us can ask this question to anyone of us." The answer should always
be the same.

Hello airspace-ga,

As a fellow seeker of both knowledge and understanding, and perhaps
even a smidgen of wisdom, I trust that you are aware of the compelling
power of falsification as a fundamental tool for accumulating
knowledge.

Demonstrate a statement as false, and one learns a lot, and amasses
some truth in the process.

A statement like:  "It cannot get colder than zero degrees Farenheit,
since zero is the smallest number" is demonstrably false, and through
falsification, we can reject it as a viable hypothesis.

Your hypotehsis -- the thing you assert as would-be fact -- it this: 
"...you can not tell me anything that I do not already understand?"

Allow me to falsify this assertion:


==========

Finis hominis, quem alium possumus statuere quam Deum ipsum exclamat
Vives repente abreptus illo oratorio impetu quo abripi solet, etiam
tum cum dialectico more argumentatur.

==========


With the above quotation, I have falsified your premise.  That is, I
have told you something that you do not already understand.




Of course, you could learn to understand it.  I'd be glad to point you
to the source of the original quote, if that would be of interest.

But at the moment, I am confident that you do not understand the above
the quote as I have told it to you, and that your premise has been
demonstrably falsified.



Now...you may wish to take exception to this approach, and perhaps
even falsify my own attempt at falsification.

If so, please feel free to post a Request for Clarificaton to state
your case, and I'll be happy to respond as best I know how.

Peace.

pafalfa-ga

---

Request for Answer Clarification by airspace-ga on 01 Jul 2005 12:17 PDT

hi pafalafa-ga,

  So you wish question clairfication. Well I am glad to see you seek
understanding, hopefully what I write will help you becom a little
wiser. If you are truly seeking understanding then you would
understand already the concept presented in the previous
clarification," I know nothing." So to try to prove something wrong by
saying it is false would be to presume you know the truth. That won't
work in this case, sorry. You are right in all that you said, and I do
not understand your statement as you presented it. Could you rephrase
it so I might better comprehend it and I can show you that I already
understand it. To try to answer this question this way is child's
play, and I will not be so eaisly tricked. But since you see this as a
trick question instead of the real question it is, I will give you a
trick responce. "I did not ask you to give me understanding."

---

Clarification of Answer by pafalafa-ga on 01 Jul 2005 13:32 PDT

airspace-ga,

Thanks for your response.  Please allow me take your comments point by
point, as is my wont.


>>So you wish question clairfication<< 

No I don't.  I'm not sure what gave you that idea, but I was perfectly
satisfied with your question as it first appeared.  What's more, it
seemed clear from your response to pinkfreud-ga that you said all you
could say, and didn't want to entertain any further requests for
question clarification.




>>Well I am glad to see you seek understanding, hopefully what I write
will help you becom a little wiser<<

Most of my GA customers assist me in this respect.



>>If you are truly seeking understanding then you would understand
already the concept presented in the previous clarification," I know
nothing"<<

Have to disagree with you there.  I know many things, and it appears
that you do as well.  You know how to type.  You (sometimes) know how
to spell 'clarification'.  I do not hold with the 'Matrix' crowd who
would have us believe that life is but a dream, and everything we
think we know is mere illusion.


>>So to try to prove something wrong by saying it is false would be to
presume you know the truth<<

Disagree again.  I wouldn't prove something false by simply saying "it
is false".  Nor would I presume -- at the outset of an investigation
-- to know the truth of something.  But I think the truth of some
things is discoverable, and the falsehood of some things is
demonstrable.  Perhaps it is my training as a scientist that orients
me this way (or perhaps it is my orientation that led me to science).



>>That won't work in this case, sorry.<< 

As I said, it doensn't work in any case...but it's not something I
would do, or did in answering your question.   But your apology is
wholeheartedly accepted.



>>You are right in all that you said<<


Thank you.



>>and I do not understand your statement as you presented it<<


Nor do I.  It's from a centuries old text, and in a language I do not understand.


>>Could you rephrase it so I might better comprehend it and I can show
you that I already understand it. <<


Sorry, no can do, because I don't understand it either.  I did not see
anything in your question that set a condition that I had to
understand the thing being told.  If that, indeed, was an implied
condition, I still feel confident I could come up with a statement
(modern day English, this time) that I understand, but that you would
not.



>>To try to answer this question this way is child's play<<

My children don't yet have this capacity, bur perhaps yours do.



>>I will not be so eaisly tricked<<

I don't understand what leads you to conclude that there was an
attempt to trick you, so I don't really know how to reply.



>>But since you see this as a trick question instead of the real question it is<<

No I don't.  I took it at face value, and interpreted it through my
own lens of knowledge, perspective, wisdom, understanding, stupidity,
fluff ....whatever you wish to call it.  That lens may differ markedly
from your own.  No tricks, though.


I will give you a trick responce. "I did not ask you to give me understanding."

You did not.  But perhaps a bit of understanding sneaked in, just the same.  




As always, the answer here isn't complete until you are satisfied with
the response.  So if there is any more you wish to add -- or wish me
to clarify -- just post another round of comments.

However, please be aware that it's vacation week for me starting right
about now, so it may be a while yet before I am able to respond to any
new comments that you post.


All the best,


paf

---

Request for Answer Clarification by airspace-ga on 01 Jul 2005 16:16 PDT

oh sorry made a small mistake, forgive me please, "Explain to me why
it is that you can not explain to me anyting I do not already
understand."

---

Clarification of Answer by pafalafa-ga on 08 Jul 2005 09:57 PDT

Hello again,

Sorry to hear that my last round of clarification wasn't to your
liking.  I'll elaborate a bit more (and in a different direction) when
I'm back from vacation, so please be patient for another week and a
few days.  (At the moment I'm in an internet cafe off the beach, and
it's just not conducive to the type of thoughtful feedback I'd like to
get you).

So...stay tuned, and I'll get back to you soon.


paf

---

Request for Answer Clarification by airspace-ga on 08 Jul 2005 13:33 PDT

I am sorry for my eailer comments, you see I don't even have my high
school education, so I don't go for this joke political correctness of
pointing out the little errors of others to judge myself better. When
faced with such behaviour I just get direct. It frustrates me by the
way, not insults me. Being insulted is a choice and I guess since my
eailer comment was removed I will presume you chose to be insulted.
Funny, I was informed my comment was removed because of the use of
certian terms. But i would be surprised to have a question removed if
i posted it like this,"Please explain to me the orgin of the word
moron." so I can't see the reasoning behind removal of my commont
other then you chose to be insulted. Which, with the fact that you are
judgeing me with spelling to make me appear not as smart as you, shows
me you are not as confident as you would like me to think. You see, I
didn't go the education rout because it involves to narrow a line of
thinking, which you conveniently pointed out for everyone who wishes
to understand. First off all you people out there with all this
knowledge, it is totaly worthless without understanding, at least I
think that makes sence? You see we will look at what pafalafa has do
her to show you what I mean. They have pointed out, seemingly some
what proudly I might add, that they have a scientific minded, which
means the scientific method. One I believe in by the way, just
extreamly narrow. You see I could never understand starting with your
answer, you are obviously going to miss so much along the way. You see
palafala choose to try to answer this question by deciding the
statement was false. They spent no time, it would seem,restating or
braking the statment down to cover all that it could mean or ask. You
see palafla only focuses on the word tell as it pretains to speaking
to or informing of. The simplest of its' many meanings. I have
restated my question for comprehension purposses, and I believe this
shows that you have fell far short of answering this. You have decided
to play a little kids' game of "I said something you don't know." Even
my statements you have choosen to represent only to serve your end.
  So, here is what I will do. I will give you what I would except as
an answer, explain it as best I can, and since my statement is false
as fare as you are concerned, you will have no problem falsifying my
answer.

"You can not tell me anything I do not already understand because, we
all already have complete understanding within us."

  The very first thing I have writen was what you should have most
considered. Knowledge and understanding most difinetly work hand in
hand, but they are very different. Knowledge is the clue which unlocks
understanding from within. Sorry I do not need your knowledge to
understand. Sorry that I may have less knowledge and more
understanding. I don't seek knowledge, I seek understanding. I do not
need complete knowledge to understand do I? It is a sorry thing to see
what a little money can do to us.
  Now I have restated my question so you might better comprehend the
answer I wish you to show me you understand. You have again made a
arrogant responce as fare as I can tell, so I have given you my
answer, prove me wrongh and take your money. By the way, hardhat-ga
had the answer right away, I'm not sure they completely understand it,
but they are headed in the right direction. You should pay more
attention to what the lesser people then you put here.
  So good luck, and I hope to pay you, or have you understand and
agree. Oh, one more thing that might help you,"I understand that I can
not comprehend your statement." So you have not told me something I do
not understand.

---

Clarification of Answer by pafalafa-ga on 17 Jul 2005 09:13 PDT

Hello airspace-ga.

Thanks for your patience.  I'm back from a lovely vacation, and like
they say, tanned, rested and ready to tackle whatever needs doing,
including your question, of course.

But first, I feel compelled to ask a question of you.  Do you want a
refund?  If so, I'd be glad to arrange it.  Your various comments make
it sound as if you're unhappy not only with what I've posted thus far,
but quite possibly my whole world-view as well.

Mind you, I'm not backing out.  If you want to continue our dialogue,
I'm happy to do so.

I just wanted to make sure you were aware that a refund is an option.

Let me know what you think.


paf

---

Request for Answer Clarification by airspace-ga on 17 Jul 2005 21:32 PDT

pafalafa, I did not know I needed a refund. Although, in this world
where knowledge is concidered so valuable that doctors get to burry
their mistakes because of the valuable education they have, I guess, I
am not surprised to have to pay for knowledge that is of no use to me.
As I said eailer, if you feel you have answered the question then take
the money. Money is really worthless to me. If I had a choice between
a loof of bread and 100.00$ I would take the bread, money is only
paper.(Please note, I did not give any circumstances under which this
choice was made, so no argument please, just try to understand me.)
That is why I put such a price on this question
, so take it if you like. But what you could do to maybe satisfy us
both is this: I have given the answer I was looking for and through
discussion we have come, it would seem, to an understanding. I will
place a new clairifaction of my statement and you, in your own words
share your understanding and thoughts on all this and I will give them
my rating, if that is fair with you. And I appologize if I offended
you, although you seem not which is good. Sorry to give you the
impression I know your world view, I most certianly do not, but would
be most interested in it.
  My clarification is this, " Explain to me why it is that you cannot
explain to me anything that I am not already able to understand. "

---

Clarification of Answer by pafalafa-ga on 21 Jul 2005 17:39 PDT

>>Explain to me why it is that you cannot explain to me anything that
I am not already able to understand...<<


All right, airspace-ga...I'm ready to take another crack at this.


I'm not sure if humans come into this world with any sort of
understanding or knowledge.  But it seems clear that we certainly come
in with the capacity for understanding and knowledge.

I can spend years explaining to a cockroach how to tie a shoelace,
ride a bike, read a book or dance the Macarena, but to no avail...the
bug just doesn't have the capacity to learn these things.  But I can
teach all these things to my sons, and they'll get them, in due
course.  And as their simple skills grow, so will their deeper
understanding of their inner selves, as well as their place in the
world around them.

So, there's some huge, important, wonderful difference between bugs
and boys.  But what is it?  Might the difference be that my sons
already have understanding built in to their beings?  An understanding
that cockroaches do not and cannot have?

Is it this understanding that makes us human?  That gives us a soul? 
(Or perhaps just the opposite -- it's our soul, and our humanity that
gives us our understanding).

Perhaps this difference between people and bugs is the essence of your
question, though I'd be inclined to recast it along a more positive
line:  Explain how it is that anything that can be explained to you,
is something that you already understand?

I don't claim to know the answer to this, but I suspect it has
something to do with the difference between bugs and people.  Humans
can have things explained to them -- and take on new knowledge in the
process -- because at some level they are already familiar with that
which is being explained.  Bugs don't have this familiarity at all,
and explanations (of anything) are irrelevant to their existence.

Let me pause here, so I can get some feedback from you.  What do you
think of this so far?

I'm perfectly willing to continue this as an extended dialogue, if I'm
off in a direction that is of interest to you.  So let me know what
you think, and then we'll see what the next step is.


paf

---

Request for Answer Clarification by airspace-ga on 23 Jul 2005 18:22 PDT

paf, I thank you so much for your comments, they have given me all
sorts of direction to concider, and I have come up with some thoughts
I am sure you will find interesting, I know I did.
  First I would like you to know that you have more then earned the
fee I placed on this question. This question was about understanding
and although it did not take the expected path, like I had one hehe,
it has most definitly been an adventure in understanding. As you have
shown much understanding I would like to give you a rating but would
like to continue our disscuion a little further. Tell me, do I need to
rate you before the question expires for you to get paid if our
discussion is still going?
  You have raised a very interesting point with bugs. Yes they are
certainly, it would seem, incapable of even simple learning. Now this
also relates to us and the animals as well, something I have not been
able to even come close to a satisfactory understanding of how they
fit in with everything, in relation to me. Your comments have been the
cataylist for some more direct thinking on the subject. Bugs, they
seem incapable of learning in the conventional sence of what this
means to man, but are they without understanding? Well a bug will run
away from open flame, an ant will stop when it sences vibration and go
again when it feels it again, and a fly will move out of the way as
you try to swat it. All this shows understanding of selfpreservation,
even without consiousness. If the bug did not have an understanding of
the danger it would not move.
  Now this also shows the complete lack of a need for knowledge in
have understanding, the bug certianly can not do the math involved in
explaining the physics of a fly swatter comming at it, but it
understands to get out of the way.
  Tell me what you think, I have enjoyed thinking of this responce and
look forward to what you have to say. I thank you for your patience,
and the charter you have shown.

  Take care of you,
  airspace

---

Clarification of Answer by pafalafa-ga on 24 Jul 2005 18:40 PDT

airspace-ga,

I wonder if you can call a bug's built in self-preservation behaviors
a form of understanding?

Yes, bugs can do all sorts of things to keep themselves alive and
reproducing -- find food, avoid dangers, navigate the world, seek out
mates.

But consider the affinity of some bugs, like moths, to bright lights. 
No one seems quite sure what the attraction is, though some speculate
that moths are 'attracted' in a way to the moon, for use as a
navagational aid, and they confuse other bright lights for the moon.

And they confuse, and confuse and confuse!  And even when the other
bright lights are deadly bug-zappers, or even an open flame (hence the
phrase, 'like a moth to the flame') they still fly right for the
light, and often perish in the process.

Humans would learn from this, eventually making a mental equation of
bright light = possible danger.  We'd even get subtle about it,
distinguishing benign bright lights from those that are dangerous
(...is that a light at the end of the tunnel, or a train heading right
for us?)

The moths just don't seem to get it, though!  They see the bug zapper,
they fly into it.

So...do the moths really have a complete lack of a need for knowledge
to have understanding, as you speculate?

ZZZZAAAP!  There goes another one.  If there is a supreme being of
moths, it might be considering imparting some knowledge to its
brethren right about now.

But then again, we oh-so-smart humans can be pretty mindlessly
self-destructive as well.

So...your turn now.  What do you think of all this?


paf


P.S.  Don't worry about this question expiring...it's already been
answered, I've received the fee for answer it, and the exiration date
is no longer a consideration.  Feel free to add a rating or comment
about the answer if you wish -- it will not affect our ability to
continue with our conversation.

---

Request for Answer Clarification by airspace-ga on 26 Jul 2005 10:05 PDT

Hi paf, how is ya,

So to prove the existance of a bug God eh, now there is a challange
hehe. I will point out though, that you really did not address the
question of selfpreservation as a form of understanding, you only
present a lack understanding of why bugs will do things to end their
own life. You have also made it clear that you understand this is
involuntary action, as well as you have shown that you understand
humans have the ability to show less understanding of selfpreservation
then bugs. But I will try to help you understand the bug God anyway.

Yes bugs it would seem have little if any choice. They seem to operate
only on involuntary responses. Now the fact that they have a nerves
system and react to their environment shows that they have enough
understanding for the involuntary responces needed to survive. In
displaying no choice they show lack of concious not lack of
understanding.

Now we humans also have involuntary functions of our nerves systems.
we will pull away from an open flame instantly, but we have enough
understanding of our environment to choose to burn ourselves. This
would display conciousness in the form of choice.

Now not to go religious on you, but basicly all belief is that there
is one power, one thought, one understanding, one knowing, one belief,
one existance, one concious, one complete everything. Even a true
belief in nothing is a complete nothing and therefor is everything. So
what is everything? Energy is the one thing that is everything I can
see and is everything I can't see. Energy is the one thing that is
everything.

Back to us and the bugs. Now we very much exist in the real world with
the bugs. So what is responsible for our existance in the real world
can eaisly be assimilated to involuntary bodly functions. With out the
involuntary actions of our hearts, our lungs, etc. we would die. Even
without our instinct of selfpreservation we would walk off a cliff.
Now if you understand what is responsible for our involuntary actions,
then you can see with what I have presented here so far, that what is
responsible for my physical existance can also be responsible for the
bug existance.

Now our mental existance. We think in pictures. Our concious, our
soul, our minds, our thoughts. All I am I my consious existance is
thought. My mental existince is a constant bombardment of choice in
the form of pictures presented to my minds eye. We really do not no
for sure where the concious is. I feel like I think in my head, and we
know thought is real but we don't know what it is other then energy.

"I feel like I think in my head." The brain runs everything that is my
physical existance. It send the required signals to the verious parts
of our bodies nessessary for our survival. This is a function that,
like the bug, does not reqiure any apparent choice, so the need of a
concious is not nessessary for life it would seem. So then what is our
consious if it is not our understanding of our preception of the
choices presented to our minds eye? Now higher forms of animals
definitly show signs of choice, even if is limited in comparision to
us. Well choice shows some signs of concious so maybe all animals do
have concious. Not for me to say. Now I am not saying we are the same
as the anmals, it would just appear that we operate the same. The
difference is in our choices. If our complete existance is in the form
of pictures in our minds eye then this is where our choices are. So
what makes us diferent from the animals in our ability to choose? We
have a clearer understanding of the physical existance we share and
there for are presented more choices. But still this does not explain
our concious choices. The big difference between us and the animals,
the thing that makes man unique, and the thing that makes him
responsible for his soul, is that we can present our own choices to
our minds eye. Oh paf, stop me when I tell you something you don't
already have the ability to understand would ya.

So here is mans existance. We have the ability to construct thought
base on our understanding of what we preceive in the phycical and
mental world. So we can form a picture of what we want. Now life is
choice and belief. Why man seems to have so much free will is because
this gives him unlimited choice in his ability to ask for
understanding. You see we form pictures based on knowledge and
understanding of what we want in our minds eye. We receive ideas on
how to realize our wants in the form of pictures in responce to our
wants, which is understanding. The more focused you become(the clearer
the picture in you head) and the more you grow to understand your
want, and the closer it is to becoming realized in the real world.

So life is belief and choice, and the more you believe in your choices
the more real they become. This does not come without a price. I will
say God gives us our choices. We have increable freedom of choice,
unlimited is my guess, and God will give us what we want, if we want
it bad enough to understand it and then believe it. With this abilty
also comes an awarness. We refer to it as enlightenment. It is what
keeps man from doing right from wrong. I will refer to it as Gods
will, and it is always good and right, but rarely followed. As I said
eailer, there is a constant flow of images to our minds eye, we could
not stop it no matter what we do. In the images are the understandings
of what we want, but also there are the images of what would be Gods
will(what is good and right). The stronger the focuse and clearer the
picture of what you want, the less you see Gods will.

So you see, the way I see it is everything is everything and that
includes everything. This means there is only one everything and
everything has it's understanding. Mans most wonderful gift is
understanding. You can ask for any understanding and it will be given
you. Also with this gift comes choice. This does not mean we get to
choose, this means the choice is up to us. Every little insignificant
choice is entierly ours to make for our selves. We are most definetly
influenced by how we feel about what we understand. The choices we
make are directly related to how we feel and we get to choose weather
or not to act upon one feel or another. We quite often put off making
a decision because we are not sure how we feel about it and then make
the decision after clearer understanding comes to us and we feel
better about it. Now lets not forget that this clearer understanding
might be about what you want not what is good and right, and there may
be a very thin line between the two, but to try to say choice is not
there, then you are lieing to yourself from what I can see.

Well paf I guess I have said understanding is complete within you,
which I have tried to explain here. Tell me what you think.

Take care of you,
Airspace

---

Clarification of Answer by pafalafa-ga on 27 Jul 2005 19:57 PDT

airspace-ga,

Some thoughts and reactions...

>>Now the fact that they have a nerves system and react to their
environment shows that they have enough understanding for the
involuntary responces needed to survive...


True, but only up to a point.  The fact is, a whole lot of bugs (a
whole lot of other organisms) don't survive.  They get extinguished as
individuals, as populations and as entire species -- which we call
extinction.  So having involuntary responses is no assurance of
survival.  And survival is no assurance of the presence of a nervous
system.  Plants survive very nicely, without much going on in the way
of consciousness, understanding, or any other sort of cognitive
function.



>>all belief is that there is one power, one thought, one
understanding, one knowing, one belief, one existance, one concious,
one complete everything.

I rather agree, but I don't think everyone does.  There are still
polytheists floating around who believe in a multitude of divine
powers.  And there are others who believe in a sort of world-as-it-is
sort of take on things, without any grand unifying
principle/being/energy/consciousness  pervading everything in
existence.


>>We think in pictures.

I'll take this as broadly meant, and something I can agree with as
well, but I must say, my own capacity for mental visualization is
pretty poor, and I wish I could "think in pictures" on a more regular
basis.



>>So then what is our consious if it is not our understanding of our
preception of the choices presented to our minds eye?

Very nicely put.



>>So what makes us diferent from the animals in our ability to choose?
We have a clearer understanding of the physical existance we share and
there for are presented more choices...The big difference between us
and the animals, the thing that makes man unique, and the thing that
makes him responsible for his soul, is that we can present our own
choices to our minds eye.
 

Yes, I agree here as well, at least to the extent that I understand
what you're getting at.




>>With this abilty also comes an awarness. We refer to it as
enlightenment. It is what keeps man from doing right from wrong.


Hmmm.  There's certainly one type of enlightenment that does present
an individual with a deeper understanding of right and wrong.  But I
also think their are forms of enlightenment that, in their way,
sidestep of transcend the whole question of right and wrong.  If a
philosophy promotes enlightenment based on a notion that we are
meaningless specks in the universe should free ourselves of all
desire, then one thing that can dissipate in the process is the notion
that there IS such a thing as right or wrong.
 


>>Now lets not forget that this clearer understanding might be about
what you want not what is good and right, and there may be a very thin
line between the two, but to try to say choice is not there, then you
are lieing to yourself from what I can see.


No, choice is there.  I feel that strongly in the core of my being. 
And it seems, you do as well.


>>Take care of you

Thanks...you too.


paf

Well paf please excuse my late rating, I thought I missed the chance
to rate your answer when the question closed. At the time I was
thinking of what I was going to say. This has certainly been a lesson
in understanding in understandings typical ironic way. The only thing
I would like to comment on now is how even two, seemingly hated
combatants, get a warm feeling if they come to an understanding.

Take care of you,
airspace

Because you are tuned into the universal intelligence that is available to us all.

Some of this material may be of interest to you:

http://www.answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=516220

Hello Airspace,
I expect that you have been around here long enough to understand that
quite a few of us don't "understand" the tenor of your clarification
as it is directed towards Pinkfreud-ga.

Your question again:
"Tell me why it is that you can not tell me anything that I do not
already understand?"

Maybe I cannot tell YOU anything that you do not already understand,
but I know that many people can tell ME a lot of things that I do not
understand  - and then I still do not understand them.

Although this is a highly philosphical question, that is, one that can
be discussed  - if not answered -  without reference to religious
concepts, from your other postings, it seems that perhaps you are
seeking such.

Proverbs 16:22 	Understanding [is] a wellspring of life unto him that
hath it: but the instruction of fools [is] folly.

Myoarin

To me the answer is the question ...
Mary Baker Eddy makes it clear   
She said all is Mind and Minds infinet manifistations...   If that is
true and all is Mind then we are part of that mind  and all knowing
like our infinet source...    If mind is all then there is no
intelegence apart form that Mind.      We need only to get in touch
with our source who is all knowing  !
We reflect that   one  Intelligence  and there for knowing is no more
than reflecting MIND     and there is no one else but the one all
knowing  Mind.
Seattle Jack

As Airspace is a new found friend of mine, I hope he is not upset by
my answer. The only final answer to these philosophical type questions
is ...Forget our wants and needs and look to the one who really
controls our lives. Matthew 18;3. " Truly I say to you, Unless you
turn around and become as young children, you will by no means enter
into the kingdom of the heavens" . Therefore, whoever will HUMBLE
himself like this young child is the one that is greatest in the
kingdom of the heavens",
When that great day arrives, it will not matter whether we are a
common unschooled labourer or a rocket scientist. What will matter is
our attitude towards God. and what matters now is our willingness to
humbly listen and learn. Just like first graders sitting in a circle
on their first day of school.

Hi pug, how are you. Please excuse my approuch, it does not display my
true intent. My intent is understanding, and I am not having much
luck. I can see that I am being difficult but this is important to me.
Lack of understanding is where all our problems and differences and
arguments come from. I would be so happy to pay someone to show me
understanding instead of showing that they are correct. I again agree
with everything you have stated here pug. This is just type, if I were
to meet pafalafa-ga in person I would hope to greet him as a friend
and equal, and I feel confident they would feel that from me.

Well, from my casual reading of this Q&A, it seems to me that *if* the question is:

Tell me why it is that you can not tell me anything that I do not
already understand?

Then the most obvious, although not necessarily correct, answer is
that you have asked the wrong question. Yours is predicated on the
idea that you already understand everything I can tell you, which,
unless you're omniscient or the basic tenets of reality are not what I
think they are, is obviously but not apparently false. So in this
regard I agree with PF.

But more telling perhaps is your first clarification in the above
question area. Call me crazy, but after reading your original question
and your murky clarification, I firmly believe that you're just being
didactic by asking what you say is a rhetorical question. This is in
sharp contrast to your claim just to be seeking knowledge, although of
course you may have changed your mind after some of this
correspondence with PF.

Clearly, this annoys me and I don't have the same patience as PF,
indulging what appears to me to be an empty college freshman
philosophy 101 throwaway question. Ironically, I am perfectly willing
to waste my time *making* this comment as well, so I may well be as
didactic as you, lol.

But it's your money, my comment isnt' even worth us$0.02 haha.

Hello Airspace-ga,

Please let me try to contribute with my two cents with your interesting topic.

Since you distrust the scientific method, I will not try to falsify
your statement ?what, by the way, has already been done by
pafalafa-ga, and impeccably, for those who would accept that approach.

In a different way, and with the intention of sharing with you my
personal viewpoint to contribute to your understanding, I'll simply
tell you that, IMHO, your statement is just hard to believe.

Life --which includes but is not limited to education-- has taught me
that understanding is built through experience, thus the former
doesn't precede the latter.

Let's take a child; she'll understand her mother language as a result
of her experience with it. She already had the capacity to build
understanding, but not the understanding itself.

This explains why a, say, seven years old girl who clearly understands
the statement "you're a pretty little girl" in her mother language,
will not understand the same phrase in a language she has never dealt
with. Experience builds the structure of learning, and for any normal
person with enough life experience, by the end of the adolescence that
structure has become so strong that he or she may come to believe that
is able to understand anything, but I'm afraid that that's just an
illusion.

As an example, I remember that when I started to learn Latin, I
believed that I would understand it all just because my mother
language --Spanish-- has Latin roots. That belief obviously failed: my
learning structure was not enough; it was a good foundation... to
construct further learning structures on it, thus being able to
understand that other language. If now I wanted to understand
astrophysics phenomena, I would lack of a preexisting understanding:
I'll need to build new structures.

Education doesn't give people all they need for understanding, but it
does help them to understand that the mysteries out there are far
beyond any previous understanding, so as far as we want to deepen it,
we'll have to build further learning capacities.

Despite it is on the opposite side of your beliefs, I offer this
reasoning to you with my best intention, in order to contribute with
your search for understanding. I hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Guillermo

guillermo-ga, I have read your comments and thank you, they have been
food for thought. Time to eat. First I would like to say that I did
not indicate that I do not trust the scientific method, I understand
it for what it is. I have stated time and again that I know nothing
because everything I know can change tomorrow. Now this applies to
science does it not. By the way, I do not see any resistance to this.
So I will only offer one word to sum up science, PHOTOSYNTHESIS.
  Now you said you agree that paf did indeed falsify my statment. And
to show you I understand I will also agree, he did falsify my
statement if you choose to only consider the word tell as it pretains
to speeking. Even paf claimed not to understand the meaning of his
statement. So, would you not agree that to explain is also one of the
meanings of the word tell? Now paf cannot even explain his own
statement to me so I would think that he did not tell me something I
do not already understand. Now if you can not see the trickery in this
attempt to answer this question, weather intended or not, then you are
choosing to fool yourself.
  I would like to take this time to point out somethings. First if you
review my statements I have agreed with most everything anyone has
said, I have spook from my heart with my own honest thoughts, and I
believe I have stayed consistant. My maine focuse has remained
understanding. Here again you have tried to give me your
understanding, Which I have continually showed you I share, and yet I
see very little in attempts to share my understanding. Even here you,
guillermo-ga, have said you find my statement hard to believe. Well
believe is knowledge and understanding so you are telling me you do
not fully understand my statment. Now if you alow yourself to consider
the very real possiblity of my statement, with a free and open mind,
understanding will come which will then be followed by belief.
  All I have to say about your wows with Latin is if you are not still
trying then you choose not to be able.
  Now the senario you painted of the little girl, I would like to
expand on it, which is my wont. Doing this Wihtin your own mind brings
understanding by the way. So the little girl,7, knows when she is told
she is pretty, and cannot understand this in a language she dose not
recognize, correct. Well I understand and agree. But let us consider
this. The mother, undoughtably, accompanies this statement with
emotion, expression, and maybe even a jesture such as lightly grabing
her daughter's chin. Now the child understands all this to mean she is
pretty. Now if the mother does everything the same and changes the
language she uses only, her daughter will understand that she is
pretty all the same, and she will also understand that she did not
comprehend the words. Now if a stranger does very similar jestures to
her mother and address the little girl in a unrecognized language the
little girl will still have some understanding of the message and will
understand that she does not understand the statement. Now if the
statement is made with no jestures in a unrecognized language then the
whole message is lost but the child still understands that
communitation was made.
  One more thing, elijstar-ga, Could you explain the word didactic to
me, obvious a simple word I just see no need of waisting my thoughts
on
, but am courious. This would not be to much to ask of your simple
mind I hope, or weight on your frazzled attention span.
 grillermo, I thank you again for you involvement and hope this gives
you more to consider. Please respond, I will give it my attention.

That wasn't just two cents' worth, Guillermo.

Airspace,
One of the problems here is that readers have to take words literally;
you wrote "tell", now apparently meaning "explain", which is fair
enough, and in a face to face conversation would have immediately been
clarified, but here, thanks to Guillermo's comment and your reply,
this has taken a while - maybe even for you to recognize the better
choice of word.

So:  "Tell me why it is that you can not tell [explain to] me anything
that I do not already understand?"

Isn't that just what learning and education do:  explain things that
are till then not understood?  Of course, the learning process is
built on little steps of understanding:  first language, then the
necessary understanding of simpler matters before more complicated
ones can explain interrelationships and cause and effect.

You bring belief into this:  "Well believe is knowledge and understanding ..."

This is not true, to the contrary:  belief is "confidence in the truth
or existence of something not immediately suceptilble to rigorous
proof" (Webster's).
As a German saying puts it:  "Believing means not knowing."

I think we have to leave "belief" and "believing" out of this if we
don't want to get into a religious discussion.  But if you do, then
that makes a discussion of your question on a philosphical basis
rather impossible.

didactic:  intended for instruction; inclined to teach or lecture
others too much  (Also Webster's).

Myoarin

Thank you both Airspace and Myorin for your reception to my comment. I
agree with Myorin on the concept of "belief", which requires neither
knowledge nor understanding to accept something as true.

Airspace, through your comments you've shown that you manage logics,
acquisition that any normal person would complete by the end of their
adolescence if properly stimulated through life ?regardless whether
having had a scholarly education or not. (Education is intended to add
method to enhance that capability and contents to make it produce
knowledge, and also to help those who have some sort of blockage to
develop it by themselves, but the construction of logical thinking is
an innate human ability that begins from the very first day ?note that
I'm not talking about logics as the scholarly discipline, which is a
whole object of knowledge and research by itself).

Well, if you are talking about that ability, the management of logics,
when you say (using Myorin's rephrasing) "tell me why it is that you
can not explain to me anything that I do not already understand?",
then our viewpoints are getting closer. I mean, reformulating again
your question to: "tell me why it is that you can not explain to me
anything that I am not already able to understand?", then I would
answer: "because you manage logics".

Still, there's a difference between the ability of understanding and
the understanding itself. Everyone has a range of logical complexity
that they can manage with a relative immediacy, and that also differs
for different fields of knowledge. For example, I can handle a complex
text with almost no thinking delay, but for a math problem, please
give me paper, pencil, calculator, even a book and I can't guarantee
that I'll make it ;-) And for others is just the opposite.

When in your experience you've mostly come across with subjects which
fall within your range of immediate understanding ?either because you
have a very high IQ, or because you've always dealt with rather simple
issues- you may come to believe that you really understood them in
advance. Actually, the case is not that, but that you figured it so
fast and easily that it seems you had already understood it. Sometimes
very well written essays or very good teachers get that effect for
complex things. But every time that you need some time to figure it
out, you'll see that you did not understand it in advance.

Geniuses like Newton, Plank, Einstein, Hawkins, are not so because
they understood things in advance, but because they worked hard to
understand things that were difficult even for them, and succeeded.
And later, with a lot of effort, made others much smarter than you and
me understand them as well. Now the laws of Newton may be understood
with relative ease by most high-school students, but that's because
that understanding has been spreading in our culture for centuries.

But even the understanding achieved by geniuses like them sometimes
proves to be mistaken, by further research, and new understanding
replaces the previous. Think of it, if understanding preceded the work
to understand, e.g. the explanation, research would have no reason to
exist, and you know that governments, companies and other institutions
invest billions in research.

What is research other than the intent to understand what no one can
explain, because no one has understood it yet?

Another lead to the idea that we don't understand things before
they're explained to us ?or observed and interpreted by us- is the
existence of misunderstanding, what is literally something observed by
or explained to us that we understood in a wrong way. If we understood
things in advance, that would never happen, and this is not the case.

Regards,

Guillermo

First off I would like to say I difinetly am being didactic, and if
you haven't noticed not getting any where. And I'm not the only one
being didactic but what I would like you to observe is that I am one
of the few who is trying to explain what I understand not tell you
what I know. I thank both myoarin and guillermo for their comments. I
would also like to make a special thanks to guillermo for pointing
that I use logic well. I also have much common sence, and am extreamly
observent. I am going to use these talents to hopefully show the both
of you where you are lacking in your understanding, something you try
to do for me instead of trying to understand me. Niether of you make
any comments regarding what you think of my thoughts, you just agree
to have the same incomplete understanding of things that maybe you
should not be commenting on but instead should be considering. For
example did not either of you notice that I clarified the word tell 8
days before guillermo's first comments, so what have you been talking
about there.
  Now secound your understanding of belief is so simple it is truly
sad. The only thing I will mention that could be preceived as
religious is this, "Belief is why Jesus could not run away from
himself and was nailed to a cross. Faith is what nailed him to it."
What you to have decided is belief is in deed part of belief but not
belief, it is faith. myoarin you even guoted the dictionary in an
attempt to prove your correctness. Well I looked in my own Webester's
dictionary and Could not find a similar meaning directly under belief,
although I did find a similar meaning under one of it's synonyms,
faith. Now in my Webester's dictionary, directly under belief, I found
this as the third meaning. "Conviction of the truth of some statement
or the reality of some being or phenomenom esp.when based on
examination of evidence". So belief is indeed knowledge and
understanding. Actually, everything is belief. Your belief in your cup
to hold water is based on your knowledge and understanding. Faith is
the strength of your belief. Faith is unsubstantiated belief, belief
in nothing. So alittle belief is far more powerful then any amount of
faith. All the faith I can through at you, the faith of 10,000 men is
not going to convince you I can pour water through your cup. Your
knowledge and understand, your belief will not alow faith alone to
change anything for real. Hopefully this has gave you and
understanding of belief beyond some German's understanding of faith.
  Now all I am going to say about your lack of understanding of
education is that you don't seem to understand that the goal of the
learning process is understanding and that teaching is simply
providing for the attainment of understanding. Understanding Is not
something you can give or make anyone come to. To presume that I am
saying that I already understand simply because I say we already all
have complete understanding within us is again to minipulate my
intentions to serve your end, not understanding, and this is childish.
It is your rediculus assumption that I am saying I already understand
when I have said I already have complete understanding within me. you
see I grow tired of this lack of understanding. You see I have already
stated that without mans knowledge my understand would be nothing so
stop trying to teach me and start trying to understand with me. After
all you can't even see where the use of genisus is actually proving me
correct. Yes with out long deep internal reflection on things then
they would not have understood and have been able to explain things to
help us understand. Oh my gosh, is that not what you said and what I
said. Tell me why you show no consideration of my thoughts, are they
too dificult for you to understand,
  One more thing, you realy don't want my view point on the complete
and utter waist of government and private funds for the purpose of
better serving the wants of man. You might want to consider this,
Marijuanais still by far the most effective pain inhibitor know to
man. Completely nonphysically additive and has never killed anyone.
Might hurt you pressious economy though. You people should really wake
up to what you are saying. Yes we should diffinetly be spending
massive amounts of money on research, after all we all need a new
smaller cell phone and smarter weapons, and oh yes, the 400 treatments
to combat the 7000 deseases and ailments. Research, horse cha cha,
just another industery we seem to think we need to keep alive, WHAT A
JOKE. By the way, before anyone decides to make a comment about this
please concider that there are only 3 necessities in life and we ain't
doing no reserach to improve these for everone, are we.

Dear Airspace,

I'll briefly clarify a few points and then excuse myself from
continuing commenting in this thread since it seems that, in search
for understanding, we've ended to build a real mess... Very human by
the way!

You're right about that I didn't completely understand you until you
posted your last comment. However, I almost did it when I said that
our viewpoints would get closer by "reformulating again your question
to: 'tell me why it is that you can not explain to me anything that I
am not already able to understand?'", as opposed to "anything that I
do not already understand". That is very close to "...we already all
have complete understanding within us..." as opposed to the
"assumption that I am saying I already understand when I have said I
already have complete understanding within me". So please notice that
I did take your thoughts into account and in good faith used my
understanding to correctly interpret them.

Now, the complete context of my quotation from your comment goes like
this: "To presume that I am saying that I already understand simply
because I say we already all have complete understanding within us is
again to minipulate my intentions to serve your end, not
understanding, and this is childish. It is your rediculus assumption
that I am saying I already understand when I have said I already have
complete understanding within me. you see I grow tired of this lack of
understanding."

Please be reassured that I had no assumption at all, since it was you
who wrote "anything that I do not already understand" (instead of
"anything I already have complete understanding for"), and by no means
I ever thought or suggested that it was childish, ridiculous or
manipulative.

Now that through several posts you have clarified your point (i.e.:
"tell" meaning "explain", and "I already understand" meaning "I
already have understanding"), it comes to light that all of the
attempts that some of us did to match your needs, would inevitably go
wrong, misled by a slight imprecision in the original wording. Maybe
you should have considered Pinkfreud's invitation to clarify in the
beginning ;-) ... on the other hand, had you done so, we would have
missed the debate!

Well, as it's now clearly understandable for anyone, I had indeed
taken your thoughts into consideration, and had actually understood
you. Still, there was something I had been misunderstanding until your
last post: since this service is meant to help people who ask for
answers ?be it given as a formal answer or as a comment-, all the time
I was addressing you with the intention to explain to you what I
figured you wanted to be explained. Had we met in a forum meant for
debate instead of in a service for information research, I would have
not been so "didactic" ;-).

As to research, well, that has nothing to do with this issue once you
have finally made it clear. Still, I want to tell you that, while not
completely, I do agree a big deal with your thoughts on it ?e.g.: we
definitely don't *need* new smaller cell phones and smarter weapons,
IMHO.

While it's been stimulating so far, and taking for granted that
further comments from you or other users would be most interesting,
I'm afraid this is when I say good by, since I'm supposed to invest my
time in researching. This has been most enlightening. Thank you.

Best regards,

Guillermo

guillermo you are truly a blessed individual. You have my most gacious
praise, as you have shown true patience, caring, and of course,
understanding, in putting up with me. You have my most humble appology
also, as I truly must addmitt I totaly missed your, quite correct,
clairfaction of my understanding in your previous posting. You are so
right in everything you have said in this posting, even down to the
start when I did in deed not respond correctly to pinkfreuds request
for clarifition. I would like to thank you for giving me understanding
and would like to use this to expand on what you have introduced. This
is not the first, nor will it be the last time I am given A NEW
UNDERSTANDING OF SOMETHING I UNDERSTAND BETTER THEN MOST. You see,
where I gained understanding is in the in complete presentation of my
understanding, which translates into a deeper understanding, because
the better you can explain yourself for others to understanding you,
the more complete is your understanding. One other thing I would like
to point out is this; even when we think we are trying to seek out
understanding, it is amazing how we unknowingly resist it, as I have
more then demonstrated here, I hope, with my addmittance of my own
missunderstanding. I hope I have shown you how true to understanding I
am, it is truly mans biggest challange. guillermo, you are also
correct about your job as a resercher. Maybe these guestions should
not have a place here? let me tell you a story. When I first came here
as a visitor to google answers it grabed my attention with the first
question I found, "why do changes in our preception occure?" When
reading the answer given I noticed in the first line of the second
paragraph the word "know". Well not that this would normally be a
problem except for the way it was used. This made me laugh and read on
through the lengthy bable that was presented, which was interesting
but not even close to an answer, as I expected from the use of the
word "know". The Avatar master had writen this I believe," any Avatar
master knows". Well I laughed because I know that if any avatar master
knows anything, then he understands that he knows that he knows
nothing and would have said," any Avatar master understands". So here
was this clown answering questions he should not be. Now in all
honesty there are a very limited amount of questions here that intrest
me. The real questions in life are like thoughs I have placed here and
the answers are only levels of undrestanding. We all have knowledge,
which with understanding, forms belief. Our faith is confused with our
will for our knowledge to be right, instead of having faith in our
ability to understand from within. This world will get no where untill
we all stop trying to be right and start trying to understand. I
placed these questions for the purpose of showing exactly what you
said, These questions shouldn't be asked here,so why can I ask them,
money? I think it is time to go straighten things up with pafalafa.
Thank you again, this has been enlightening.

Airspace,

I just want to thank you for your praise, and tell you that I'm glad
that this thread finally helped you get a bit of the understanding you
so devotedly search.

Best,

Guillermo

guillermo, your praise is well deserved. Please if you would, tell me
what you think of this. I difinetly seek understanding, it is why I'm
here, but is not seeking understanding also sharing understanding? And
is it not what we should all be devotedly seeking? Would you agree
that it is what Jesus was, and what he sought, and what he wished to
bring? Please, from your heart, what do you think?

Guillermo, please understand did not mean in anyway to introduce
religion into this discussion. For me Jesus can be just a man and
still have done the same things. So the question I last asked of you
pertains to how you understand this man, the same as I would of your
understanding of any man. I am just trying to see if anyone can see
how the topic at hand, and this Great man from our history, are so
closely linked and so missunderstood.

amitkuls, Your point is well taken, and I could not agree more. But I
most add that understanding is much more them analysed knowledge, your
similes are correct but not comparative. Is not observing the process
by which we understand the knowledge we see? Is not listing the
process by which we understand the knowledge that we hear? Please show
me that you have read this by posting another comment and tell me what
you think by .

I must say, I find a rather amusing use of a simple rhetorical device
that I cannot recall the name of at this moment. Maybe "Catachresis" ?
I have seen this many times before by people who are obviously
intelligent but ultimately lack the logical construct to formulate
their argument fully. If you do understand part of the answer to this
question, you must also understand that you are using the words
"understand" and "know" in ways that must be explicitly defined to us
before we can give you an educated answer, assuming they are not
dictionary definitions. If you do not define them in a more precise
manner, you MAY be simply hiding behind them without more
consideration, even in your own thoughts on the subject.

I often wandered when I am on vacation why some people spend an
inordinate amount of time in Internet cafe's. Now I know. It is Google
Researchers attempting to answer airspace-ga questions!
Mongolia

airspace-ga,

Thanks for the kind words (and the stars, too, of course).

Hope we'll have a chance to work together on another question of yours
one of these days.

paf

Congratulations Paf!