A gentle reminder

[Miguel1]

15 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Not really. Doing it reasonably well isn't the same as mastering it. It just means being able to make it real - whether that is done excellently or not is a different matter.

In your own words: ”to actualize it”.

I wonder what is ’mastering something’ then if not to actualized it and to do it really well.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Jirh said:

I think we can say birds understand flying instinctively or unconsciously, if that makes sense.

No, it does not make sense.

[Jirh]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

No, it does not make sense.

I love you, man! 

[tsuki]

Which birds are the masters of flight? 

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, tsuki said:

Which birds are the masters of flight? 

Kiwis

[Willy Phallicus]

Knowing is overstanding. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Kiwis

Sif not penguins !

 

[Leo Gura]

@Natasha Tori Maru Kiwis in honor of the lass from down unda

Gotta keep the Aussie theme going.

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Xonas Pitfall]

Understanding in its purest form is being, unity. You want to understand something so badly that you fully become and immerse yourself in it. Hence, Love = Pure Understanding.

[Leo Gura]

Being is not understanding.

You guys are being sloppy.

[Xonas Pitfall]

@Leo Gura In its purest form, it is!

In more generic layman’s terms: then no, correct.

[Jirh]

Being is definitely one form of understanding (Feminine, instinctive, non-verbal, intuitive, unconscious). The other form is intellect (Masculine, learned, verbal, logical, conscious).

Both forms are valid.

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

Not at all. We're using 'understanding' differently. I'm talking about experiential understanding. If you can't "do" it (experience it, actualize it, make it real and not merely conceptual), you don't really 'understand' it. Your inability to actualize it is proof of this disparity, and this feedback points to the existence of this domain of "knowledge" that isn't just "thinking" that you understand something. The latter requires proving it, in a sense, and not just spinning your mental wheels.

I may understand how to remove a car battery by watching a YouTube video and so on paper I understand it but then when I go.perform the actual task I can't turn the.wrench quite right due to.the location of the battery because im not super experienced with the nuances of the wrench in certain weird . positions or have little experience.  Does this mean I dont understand it conceptually though?

Edited 6 hours ago by Inliytened1

[tsuki]

By watching a video, a representation of the action, you understand the video because you created concepts, representations, of what had been done. Thus you may say that you know how to change the battery.

Understanding is demonstrated by changing the battery, by aligning reality with the concepts you have, so that what you have in front of you corresponds with the knowledge you have.

As for the existence of understanding apart from demonstration, it is just conviction, nothing else.

[Breakingthewall]

There are many levels of understanding. For example, you might understand that if you're handsome you'll have more opportunities to get sex than if you're not. This is an understanding. 

but you could also understand that most of the time this will happen because of a validation dynamic rather than genuine attraction, and that the person will choose you because you're desirable to others, therefore their identity status will be elevated, and none of this has anything to do with a good fucking session.

[tsuki]

The whole bird/mastery thread is silly because it tried to discuss understanding without the possibility to create knowledge (as in case of animals).  Understanding is only in relation to something you know/representation.