----- Original Message ----
Stan Nilsen wrote:
After thinking a bit more, I see that there are other ways to
"understand" that do not deal with "process." I can think of two cases
of a different kind of understanding (and there are others I'm sure)
Case 1 example: "Do you understand wood? There are many
"senses" to what wood is and does. When does one understand wood? And
how would a person explain wood?
Case 2 might be an event. "Do you understand the bridge failing and
crashing down into the river?" As an engineer there might be one way to
understand it. A person in a car on the bridge at the time has another
understanding. A government responsible for the bridge has another way.
A traffic engineer has another way.
So yes, it can be ambiguous to understand. One would need to be careful
to identify exactly what is being explained in an effort to communicate
an understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------
I think these two cases really illustrate that explanation really is dependent
on some purpose (or purpose-like concepts) and numerous other concepts needed
to integrate the purposes to the primary subject. In addition, other concepts
are needed to form the communication of the subject. So explanation is a lot
more complicated than it might seem.
But similar remarks could be applied to understanding as well. For example,
although you may not need to communicate an understanding, the idea of
understanding seems to imply that you have some effective ability to use that
understanding in some way. A little like the woodworker who knows how to work
wood or the engineer who understands a great deal about bridges.
Jim Bromer
Jim Bromer
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
