Comprehending the incomprehensible isn’t really what it appears to be or to quite straightforwardly state. Comprehending is of itself, a complicated task of its own making. First you have the claim of frame as in, what is there to comprehend(?). That is usually assisted by setting up a language base which gives names to all of the known parts, states or assumes the relationship of those parts leading up to the brink of the unknown or unknowable. All of which is an initial fabrication within the ritual of comprehension. How comprehension in the mind-work sense actually happens is readily assumed to be so yet not at all completely understood or even functionally ascertainable in the midst of the comprehension activity. Who is there to question the didactics of a questioning mind? Of course there is a grand assumption in place that the incomprehensible will give ground and become comprehensible in that comprehending was steadfast and pursuant and compelling in its thoroughness. Yikes, once again the assumption is that the universe is subject to human understanding in that humans invented their version of understanding and its peculiar sense of cohesion. Like the universe is really made up of understandable parts that are just waiting around to be disdainfully comprehended so that we have knowledge, at a distance, there of to source and resource for our own small minded version of needs. Our version of party to anything is separation and control. We hardly embrace the grandness with which the universe, even the most obvious in our face material part of the universe, engages with us. And we have a concept called, ‘comprehending the incomprehensible’ as if it is out there as the real issue as opposed to, ‘the inside us’ as the first and foremost essentialness to address. What were we thinking, or how were we thinking, when we were thinking that? Is that even comprehensible?