The Oxford English Dictionary of Philosophy defines understanding as follows:

understanding To have a word, or a picture, or any other object in one's mind seems to be one thing, but to understand it is quite another. A major target of the later work of Wittgenstein is the suggestion that this understanding is achieved by a further presence, so that words might be understood if they are accompanied by ideas, for example; Wittgenstein insists that the extra presence merely raises the same kind of problem again. The better suggestion is that understanding is to be thought of as possession of a technique, or skill, and this is the point of the slogan that ‘meaning is use’. The idea is congenial to pragmatism and hostile to ineffable and incommunicable understandings. See also meaning, private language, verstehen.

Epistemology is defined as the study of knowledge, but perhaps it should be the study of human understanding of knowledge. Understanding is something far less confrontational, divisive, or elusive. Pursuing understanding seems to be under-developed, and perhaps many of the fruits of the epistemologist's labor are to be had in such pursuits. Food for thought.

Bibliography

"understanding" The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Simon Blackburn. Oxford University Press, 1996. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. 27 November 2007

Black Dot whisperings

I live in a crazy place in a crazy time. We are in a time when our actions have very large consequences, but who says we can't kick ass? Just because the situation our world is in seems desperate, does that mean we should despair? I argue that most people I know say they work best at crunch-time... Perhaps now it is time to put up or shut up. I observe a world of artifice and superficial substance and am scared of the waste we accept of it. Why do we need to pay the middle man? The bureaucracy doesn't work and we don't have to let it exist. They may argue we'll be destroying jobs, but I argue that it destroys jobs. It allows mediocrity, limits greatness, and entrenches itself further in our society like a cancer. Why not endorse local artisans rather than faceless corporations? Easier said than done. I'm a hypocrite. Convenience is my vice, perhaps it is sloth. Perhaps the internet can give me some respite. Through this crazy technology, we can excise the middle man. Perhaps technology is not as evil as many think it to be. Perhaps technology will provide us with the answers for our crises. Could abundant energy be something that could bring about enough economic destabilization to bring about something closer to a direct system of capital that represents the people's worth and their interests, rather than one that is best exploited by those in place to do so? Check it out.

Grasping Reality

Is it going to far when you dial the phone to your employer. Thinking about the previous night's conversation with your brother. A conversation about your disapproval of the financial situation at work. Suddenly, the thought of how predictably I had reacted to the conditions involved from a psychological standpoint and feeling disappointed that I had been so negative about the money situation because of hard times at work. Those guys are good guys. In fact, the guys I work with are guys that I would love to be able to work with for the rest of my life. There is no better career I could think of. Working in something that makes you feel like you are contributing to your maximum potential (and then some) for the best interest of the world is the most gratifying thing I could think of. The people I work with are very talented, and very honorable. The things we work on are motivating, pioneering, and relevant to humanity now and forever. I couldn't ask for a better place to be in my life. I wish everything, and everybody could find that something for themselves. I think it comes from finding what you are great at, and excelling at whatever that is; because we shouldn't dwell on the things that others get, but be more concerned with what we give. I guess that is something nice to say, but you have to get something in order to give anything. Perhaps I'm just raving and my mind wanders far more than anyone could find interesting, but I cannot help the way my head works. I know I am idealistic, but it is good to think for the best. I like to think that we can visualize what should be, work to make it the closest we can, accept what we get, and do the best with that, that we can.

Poems

I've just been experimenting with the idea of quick and concise projections of thought through poetry. I've read a bit of the argument between philosophy and poetry in Harold Bloom's, Where Shall Wisdom be Found? My argument being that it can be found in anything because it is itself nothing, but that is only scratching the surface and I do not want to drag on because just about everybody checks out pretty quick if you start getting to abstract. It is crazy to me how little communication really goes on in the world. There is plenty of information being transfered, and words being used, but when speaking there is not often a single full idea shared. With writing, the writer can manifest their full idea, but the reader cannot interact to truly understand the meaning. It is as though we go through life hearing the half meaning of someone's finite attempt at explaining things that are almost all infinitely complex. I begin to wonder if it is I who is at fault for being so dumbfounded and that perhaps I cam just not quite as intelligent as the rest of the world. Perhaps everyone else gets it, and can understand what complexities matter while I trickle through the many streams of understanding that could possible lead to or leave from the fragment of an idea that might find its way before me. I am ranting once more, far from the topic in the title. I guess the point of this is that I wonder if people can better understand the directness of poetry in contrast to the vast complexities of a philosophical understanding. Either way Sophists have come back to take over the world. Beware for we have no Socrates to save us, and if we did he is probably in jail for molesting little boys. Enjoy.

Death by Peace

As I had feared
There is nothing to fear.
And so I die
A death unsung.
The masterpiece of war,
Undone.
And so I fade into the twilight.
No use for me
With no one to fight.
The love shown to me
For fear of the enemy.
But alas,
It had to end
Happiness in another's grief
Cannot last
It must be brief.
A soldier's tale
Honor and pride
But in the end
Because of peace
I died.

Mysterious Plans

The vision given by the seers.
The words of God.
The heart set.
The mind hardened.
Driven on a course with determined will.
The question never dawned on him.
Did he see what will be, or see what he needs to see?
Did he hear the words of God, or the words of his own reason?
With his own being, the answers would be paid for.
He may only hope it would be worth the cost.
Would it matter?
The time would come and go.
Would he be any the wiser?
Could he afford the price to know?
He could be no miser.
He thought long and hard.
Then it came in a flash.
It all seemed backward.
Wrong.
Then with a splash.
He saw it happen.
He heard the story before.
His heart set.
His mind hardened.
Driven on a new course with determined will.
The question never dawned on him.
How could this be?
The unfathomable mystery.
All was seen and he smiled.
The workings were finely dialed.
A story to well written.
The muse smitten.
His satan defeated-he pleaded.
The true test had come.
A past understanding, deep seeded.
Should he spare the beaten scum?
His judgement said no, but the words were never more clear.
If he killed this man, he killed himself.
The satan he fought was far more than he should have to bare.
His heart set.
His mind hardened.
He did not realize the cost was so high.
It was not time to die.
Then he remembered.
He had a choice once.
He chose to fight.
He would save many lives, he would do the world good.
He knew he was right.
He lowered his hood.
Slaying his satan, he had given himself.
His taint was now permanent.
He knew nothing else.
He asked God why?
Without a reply.
Then it dawned on him.
The rays of a smile creeped to his lips.
He was consoled.
He had done the necessary thing in a world of imperfection.
No man could be innocent.
God alone.
But then he frowned.
He had to ask.
In a world of imperction, what could be good?
He had killed a man.
Broke the commandments.
His being was lost.
He sacrificed it so that others could keep theirs.
The children of hope, the heirs.
Would he be redeemed?

Radical Ideas

I wonder if they thought the framers of this country were radicals. I wonder if the British Empire thought Ghandi was a radical. I wonder if anyone else thinks that the Islamic Fascists, and the Christian Right are both extremely radical. Some people think we need radicals to push our boundaries and further human progress. Some people think wearing different clothes and hairstyles can be radical. What is a radical anyway? I like the example of a tool for almost all applications of this nature. I define a radical to be someone or something that has/is a(n) idea(s) that is/are of extreme intensity relative to an average understanding of the constituents involved. A radical, in this sense, is not a bad or negative thing. In this understanding, radicals are very useful catalysts to th growth and understanding of our overall social structure. In fact, I could argue that all radicals serve in this way, and are in fact, good. A radical that is fighting for the equal rights of some oppressed people can certainly be seeing as a good thing. The harder radical to prove as a good thing would be the violently cohersive characteristics of a radical group that had denegrated into that state. A group of people that will not go quietly into the night. My argument is not that they serve a good. I simply argue that they serve a purpose. They defiantly show the world that there is another viewpoint. They force their presence upon the world. They make the majority deal with a minority in an extreme way, and they force us into a unique reflection upon the interaction involved. Radicals serve to push the boundaries of the world's understanding. That is the case when talking of both progressive and regressive movements in the web of understanding that is the present manifestation of the world view. Of course, this is my world view that I speak of. I am a radical... optimist, but I recall a saying in defense of pessimism. "To be a pessimist is the best bet because either you are always right, or you are always pleasantly surprised." However, I think an optimist probably said it.

What is?

It seems it is in the things unsaid that madness finds its footing. Wondering what could have been, and wondering what is. What is, is for that matter? I spoke to a friend of mine today, and we discussed existence. It seems that in the world of Epistemology, the study of knowledge, things are far less concrete than they would appear. We argued about whether or not existence existed, and he actually gave a reasonable argument for why he would believe that it did not. I still believe that it does. By the fact that I type these words, I prove existence. This is because existence by definition exists, and that I am aware of some kind of reality that is at work simply means that there is existence. Existence is itself a word. I concede to my friend here because this thing I call existence would not be existence unless I gave it the name of existence. However, this thing I call existence still exists outside of whatever language I use to describe it or convey my perception of it. I find the argument that existence is only existence because we call it that to be a very self-centered way of looking at things, but do we not live in the first person? I just like to think that things exist outside of me, and that things happen outside of me, and that I have the option (and by that, I have the responsibility) to do something to help in whatever is to happen next in this thing called existence. It is hard to explain, it is not that I want to avoid having to make a stand, and it is not that I am trying to assert that my soapbox is taller. I simply suggest that in the end, we must go about our existence, awareness, life, or whatever you would like to call it and deal with others in a pragmatic understanding. An understanding that all people have their own perspectives that are a culmination of all of the things that have happened in their existence, and those things are very different than the things that have happened in mine. Nothing in that statement is aggressive, progressive, or profound. I am simply a person with a finite awareness of an infinite reality. The saying, "If you do not know everything, you cannot know anything," holds strong validity with me. However, I think that we can know how to operate as finite beings within an infinite realm. I think that is where Epistemology will have its uses. To be able to construct a knowledge base that is contingent upon itself and build from there. The principle would be similar to that of a wikipedia in the sense that, everyone will have their opinion as to what or how something is to exist and the correct answer would progress to the top naturally. That is just speculation, and play coming from my untrained and lackingly educated mind. Reading a lot of my earliest reasoning, and philosophy rooted in religions has skewed my vocabulary, but I use the word faith to communicate the idea not of something, but rather the lack of it. To have faith simply would mean to trust all things and all people to do what they will do, and what will be will be. That seems like something we should have no choice in believing, but I suggest that nobody does. It is impractical for anyone to have faith because to make such a decision would mean the complete loss of any protection from the exploitations of others. Because it is inherent for people to desire to protect themselves, we cannot have true faith. That is why we have law. It is a system of adaptation that we humans have adopted to compensate for that lack of faith. It is actually a good system because it can also account for the shortcomings that we humans have. However, I like to try to practice the closest form of that that I can, with that in mind. That is just me, and that is how I justify myself in doing things the best I can. I would love some input and some enlightenment to anything that others might have to say. My awareness is always growing, but for that to mean anything, it must be defined in relation to a relative point.
Thats pretty much all I have for now.

Understanding

I find it hard to come to an understanding with people. I'm always told I argue to much, but all I want is to find an understanding of the other interests involved before I make my own observations. Socrates was sentenced to death for his insatiable appetite for understanding. I fear if I were as strong of will as he, I'd be in nearly the same boat sometimes. It is a scary thought to me that people seem to resort to their base mechanisms when in confrontation about some issue. I cannot tell if my reasoning allows me to be a hypocrite about things and I don't even realize it. When I begin to think about things like that, it becomes a very slippery slope. How do I know if I'm at fault if my reasoning won't allow it? How do I establish a foundation for reality, if reality is itself unknow. It is obvious that I have no grip upon reality when I am constantly in conflict with those around me, but in my head I can see a clear and critical path. Am I the one that is dysfunctional or is it the many around me, and can the world at large be used to gauge such a thought? If the world we live in is dysfunctional (meaning it is in a constant state of cohersion and conflict), then am I the one who is dysfunctional in my immediate surroundings for arguing some point I believe? Or, could those in my immediate surroundings be a product of a dysfunctional world? Then again, is the world dysfunctional, or is it just dysfunctional to me? Such thoughts lead to a devestation of my personal reality, and I begin to question the grounds beneath my very feet. How does one stand on ground that is inconsistent? Alas, I suppose the answers are not for me to know. I am a single man in this world, and who am I to oppose it? I just find it frustrating to see a path of understanding that could allow many people to better communicate their personal beliefs and come to compromise on what reality should be between them.