I hang around a lucid dreaming forum; in it is a lot of mystic gibberish. Thus it has given rise to a thought.
To understand something, you must know all that is behind it; consequently, to understand a person completely, you must know all that is behind them, in their experiences and previous views. Obviously the only person you can do this with is yourself, and even then it's probably impossible; loss of memories is needed, but some things will be lost forever.
So there is the reason why representation of the people often fails; the people representing obviously do not have the same experiences as those represented. You probably know this; it wasn't my original point.
The original point was about the words you might write when you are on drugs. They may seem quite an insight at the time, but come sobriety and they're just nonsense. This is because drugs dramatically shift your viewpoint and view on experiences; without this new view, the insights you have had will lack context.
1 comment:
I don't agree.. To understand something you don't need to know everything about it... At least, it depends on how much you want to understand.
But in your case, its basically like saying "to understand everything you have to know everything" which is logical but not true to reality.
Try thinking it more in terms of "understanding up to a point where you can use that understanding" which is much easier to accomplish.
In a job for instance, you won't need to know every tiny detail to know how to do your job and it might take you tens of years to achieve perfection in a specific field alone.. But that doesn't mean that your understanding is lost or useless.
If you know only a little about a person doesn't mean you don't know enough in general, it means you don't know enough for specific purposes.
Post a Comment