Understanding

[SalixIncendium]

Understanding can defined as the ability to comprehend something. This is ability is most commonly associated with the intellect.

It has been suggested that the understanding of things of a mystical or spiritual nature can be derived experientially though meditation, ecstatic prayer, or mystical experience. Those who gain such understanding often have difficulty describing such experiences with words, and claim that this understanding is difficult to grasp intellectually.

Can understanding occur on a level other than intellect? What would you call that level or part of you that understands outside of intellect?

 

[PureX]

Understanding can defined as the ability to comprehend something. This is ability is most commonly associated with the intellect.

It has been suggested that the understanding of things of a mystical or spiritual nature can be derived experientially though meditation, ecstatic prayer, or mystical experience. Those who gain such understanding often have difficulty describing such experiences with words, and claim that this understanding is difficult to grasp intellectually.

Can understanding occur on a level other than intellect? What would you call that level or part of you that understands outside of intellect?

"Intuition", probably. Intuition is, I believe, a much faster and more 'holistic' method of combining perception, remembered experience, imagination, and reasoned extrapolation, to reach some sort of "understanding" of ourselves and our relationship with the world around us. However, because it is what it is, it does not come with logical, conscious, probabilities for accuracy or success, and can therefor lead us into serious and even dangerous misunderstanding. So it's a trade-off, and ultimately we humans just don't possess the capacity for a full and accurate understanding our ourselves and our relationship to the world around us. Mystics can fool themselves just as easily as anyone else, can.

Chief Dan George in "Little Big Man" ...

"Sometimes the magic works, and sometimes it doesn't."

 

[Sunstone]

It is an odd fact that a merely intellectual understanding of something doesn't always change how you behave. For instance, you have no experience of trees, but I tell you that they are "hard" and not to run head first into one.

So far you have an intellectual understanding of trees. And isn't it much like an intellectual understanding of god. You "know" there is a god because it has been intellectually proven to you by arguments -- but you have your doubts, don't you?

Being you, you decide to challenge my teachings about trees being hard by running head first into one.

Now you have a different kind of knowledge about trees -- you have achieved a kind of knowledge you will not be able to deeply doubt. Same with god. If you have an experience of god, your knowledge will be just as firm as your knowledge that trees are hard.

The first kind of knowledge, book knowledge, intellectual knowledge -- I call "logos".
The second kind of knowledge, know-how, in-your-bones knowledge -- I call "gnosis"

 

[Jim]

However, because it is what it is, it does not come with logical, conscious, probabilities for accuracy or success, and can therefor lead us into serious and even dangerous misunderstanding.

Maybe intuition, reflexes, habits and conscious thinking can all be trained to work better, and to work together better.

 

[LuisDantas]

Understanding can defined as the ability to comprehend something. This is ability is most commonly associated with the intellect.

It has been suggested that the understanding of things of a mystical or spiritual nature can be derived experientially though meditation, ecstatic prayer, or mystical experience. Those who gain such understanding often have difficulty describing such experiences with words, and claim that this understanding is difficult to grasp intellectually.

Can understanding occur on a level other than intellect? What would you call that level or part of you that understands outside of intellect?

Not trying to be funny, but I tend to avoid using other words for such things. It is just too easy to end up causing undetected confusion and obfuscation if we try to use new words for concepts that do not have a clear, generally agreed meaning in the first place.

Mystic subject matters are, almost by definition, indeed tricky to express in words. That sometimes leads to a rather unfortunate set of popular but very misguided assumptions, such as that they are somehow opposed to the intellect.

That way immature inconsequential behavior lies, as many a Rajneesh fan learned (or failed to learn) far too late.

In truth, much mystical content is simply nuanced and specific, and can't very well be expressed and understood with a measure of care for having enough of a solid, common ground of understanding. That includes a refusal to toss up certain words just because they are popular and used often.

I think that ability has been associated sometimes to what may be called a subtle intellecte, among other names. "Numinous" is another adjective that I seem to remember have been used.

But we must always be careful with the words by themselves. Far too often they end up being used as licenses to misguided, destructive attempts at indulging into fantasies of inconsequential power - or even for pursuing all-out psychotical mental states.

 

[YmirGF]

I call it intuitive grasp. It's a mental facility that is similar to Heinlein's "grok" concept. Intuitive grasp moments are often punctuated with a somewhat breathless "ooohhhh" and "ahhhh". In essence, you understand something in a holistic, more complete way, but it can take awhile to work out the particulars.

 

[PureX]

Maybe intuition, reflexes, habits and conscious thinking can all be trained to work better, and to work together better.

I believe it can, and one of the best places to learn this is in a good art school. The practice of creativity involved in the making of works of art requires us to engage all these tools, and learn to integrate them to produce a meaningful result. Unfortunately, in a culture that values only monetary profit, creative practice has little value as it's considered a form of entertainment. So we are not developing creativity as a way of living. And are even discouraging it for not being 'profitably exploitable'.

 

[Jim]

I believe it can, and one of the best places to learn this is in a good art school. The practice of creativity involved in the making of works of art requires us to engage all these tools, and learn to integrate them to produce a meaningful result. Unfortunately, in a culture that values only monetary profit, creative practice has little value, as a form of entertainment. So we are not developing creativity as a way of living. And are even discouraging it for not being 'profitably exploitable'.

Woderful. Brilliant. That’s a missing link, or a missing piece of a puzzle for me. Thank you!

 

[Vinayaka]

Can understanding occur on a level other than intellect?

I think by far the most common way besides intellect is experiential. Riding a motorcycle down an empty road, wind blowing in your face, is my 'go to'. Anyone who has never done it can't possibly understand it.

For me, intuition is another matter entirely. So very personal, often opposing intellect, yet so ridiculously intelligent in and of itself, especially for an upcoming life decision or action. "You just gotta do what you gotta do'. simplifies that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Understanding can defined as the ability to comprehend something. This is ability is most commonly associated with the intellect.

It has been suggested that the understanding of things of a mystical or spiritual nature can be derived experientially though meditation, ecstatic prayer, or mystical experience. Those who gain such understanding often have difficulty describing such experiences with words, and claim that this understanding is difficult to grasp intellectually.

Can understanding occur on a level other than intellect? What would you call that level or part of you that understands outside of intellect?

A few thoughts on this:

- I see no reason to believe that inducing abnormal brain function (e.g. through drugs, extreme physical conditions, or concerted effort) is a reliable pathway to any sort of knowledge of anything other than what it feels like to have abnormal brain function.

- that aside, maybe there’s some way I’m not seeing... but I’ve never seen it be the case that anyone who claims mystical experiences or the like as their source of “knowledge” to have any more profound - or simply measurably better - insight into, well, anything than can be obtained by conventional methods.

- they say that the best way to confirm your understanding of something is to teach it to someone else. While this doesn’t necessarily mean that a person who can’t articulate their thoughts to others doesn’t understand things as well as they think they do, I would certainly suspect this as a likely possibility that shouldn’t be automatically excluded. At the very least, the fact that someone can’t articulate a concept is consistent with them not actually understanding the concept.

 

[Jumi]

A few thoughts on this:

- I see no reason to believe that inducing abnormal brain function (e.g. through drugs, extreme physical conditions, or concerted effort) is a reliable pathway to any sort of knowledge of anything other than what it feels like to have abnormal brain function.

Luckily you don't need those and I'd value their use for mysticism about as much as you do. They are interesting on their own, but I wouldn't value any "info" from such conditions and I wouldn't call them gnosis.

 

[Earthling]

How do we think, in words or pictures? When thinking and making decisions which is more important to us, what we think and what we know, or what we feel? IMO we think in pictures and what is most important is what we feel.

To understand in a legal sense means to stand under, literally. So when a law enforcement officer asks you if you understand him and any accusation he presents that you are in violation of a statute or regulation, he is really asking you if you stand under his authority and the authority of the said statute and regulation, which is actually outside of the law and therefore a granting of or acceptance of by contract.

In other words, understanding isn't really an intellectual process as such, it's a deception which you can avoid through the intellectual process.

Belief is the same type of thing. Someone who has been taught that the Bible teaches that the immortal soul can be tortured forever in hell is not likely to change their mind because they stand under that incorrect assumption. You are not likely to reason with them with an intellectual approach to the Bible. That's why I don't like talking to believers about the Bible. An atheist is more likely not to stand under those false assumptions unless they have made some commitment, intellectually or religiously, to the assumption. They are influenced by ignorance which is promoted by the traditional teachings but are somewhat more likely to see, when shown by the Bible itself. At least that used to be the case. It seems to be diminishing due to an unwillingness on the part of the unbeliever to stand under, in any way shape or form, including an intellectual approach, of the Bible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So far you have an intellectual understanding of trees. And isn't it much like an intellectual understanding of god. You "know" there is a god because it has been intellectually proven to you by arguments -- but you have your doubts, don't you?

Which god is this that’s been intellectually proven by arguments?

I see a big difference between trees and gods:

- with trees, experience augments intellectual knowledge: you can examine and measure a tree; you can corroborate your measurements against the measurements of others; your experience of the tree - running into it, for instance, will be consistent with and to a high degree predictable from your intellectual knowledge of the tree.

- with gods, the claim of experience is a substitute for intellectual knowledge. As far as we can measure or observe, the god simply isn’t there or may as well not be; the experience contradicts this. The experience also contradicts the measurements we can compare with those of others.

 

[sayak83]

Understanding can defined as the ability to comprehend something. This is ability is most commonly associated with the intellect.

It has been suggested that the understanding of things of a mystical or spiritual nature can be derived experientially though meditation, ecstatic prayer, or mystical experience. Those who gain such understanding often have difficulty describing such experiences with words, and claim that this understanding is difficult to grasp intellectually.

Can understanding occur on a level other than intellect? What would you call that level or part of you that understands outside of intellect?

If intellectual understanding were enough, reading the game of tennis well would have made me as good as Federer.

 

[David T]

Understanding can defined as the ability to comprehend something. This is ability is most commonly associated with the intellect.

It has been suggested that the understanding of things of a mystical or spiritual nature can be derived experientially though meditation, ecstatic prayer, or mystical experience. Those who gain such understanding often have difficulty describing such experiences with words, and claim that this understanding is difficult to grasp intellectually.

Can understanding occur on a level other than intellect? What would you call that level or part of you that understands outside of intellect?

so comprehend is related to the intellect. Based on what exactly? The intellect or something else other than the intellect? So if it's the intellect determining itself that's circular if it's not the intellect determining well that magic. So is comprehend as it's understood magical understanding or self referential? Both are false. Does a sea anenome comprehend? That all is dependent upon ones perceptions. So the answer is not fact but perception.

 

[David T]

If intellectual understanding were enough, reading the game of tennis well would have made me as good as Federer.

Ha ha... I put a funny and switched to ding ding ding winner!!!!

To much smart makes us stupid!!! !

 

[allfoak]

Understanding can defined as the ability to comprehend something. This is ability is most commonly associated with the intellect.

It has been suggested that the understanding of things of a mystical or spiritual nature can be derived experientially though meditation, ecstatic prayer, or mystical experience. Those who gain such understanding often have difficulty describing such experiences with words, and claim that this understanding is difficult to grasp intellectually.

Can understanding occur on a level other than intellect? What would you call that level or part of you that understands outside of intellect?

If one is having experiences a that don't benefit others then they are not really worth much to the one experiencing them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Chief Dan George in "Little Big Man" ...

"Sometimes the magic works, and sometimes it doesn't."

Quick side comment.

I love Chief Dan George. :0)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which god is this that’s been intellectually proven by arguments?

I see a big difference between trees and gods:

- with trees, experience augments intellectual knowledge: you can examine and measure a tree; you can corroborate your measurements against the measurements of others; your experience of the tree - running into it, for instance, will be consistent with and to a high degree predictable from your intellectual knowledge of the tree.

- with gods, the claim of experience is a substitute for intellectual knowledge. As far as we can measure or observe, the god simply isn’t there or may as well not be; the experience contradicts this. The experience also contradicts the measurements we can compare with those of others.

Further to this (and using @Sunstone 's terms of "logos" and "gnosis"): for "gnosis" to be valid, it has to be in line with "logos."

Looking at texts and photos can confirm that Benny Goodman played the clarinet, that his orchestra did a popular version of "Sing, Sing, Sing" and that they performed it at Carnegie Hall, but they can't convey the feeling of hearing Benny Goodman play the clarinet on that song live... fair enough.

... but if someone told me that they couldn't communicate what it felt like to experience hearing Benny Goodman live playing the violin to "Smoke on the Water" at Lollapalooza, I can still tell them that their understanding is wrong, even without having experienced whatever it is they're incorrectly attributing.

As I see it, while "gnosis" alone can help enhance and deepen an understanding gained through "logos," "gnosis" by itself without "logos" is useless as a path to knowledge.

 

[Sunstone]

Gnosis can be thought of as the "muscle memory" that allows you to unthinkingly ride a bicycle or chisel wood once you learn the skill in the first place. Those would be two instances of gnostic knowledge or understanding as the ancient Greeks thought about it.

But gnosis can also be thought of as the sort of knowledge or understanding one gains from a mystical experience. However, the fact that sort of knowledge or understanding is almost impossible to communicate to someone who has not had a mystical experience themselves has to do with the nature of words (communication via words relies on shared experiences) rather than with having anything to do with gnosis. .