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?
No comments:
Post a Comment