Bill
Gold Meritorious Patron
Ah! Yes, that's what "understanding" is! When you "understand" something you can forget "all the data" about it.
I think I see your problem.
Data Alignment
- Thread starter mearvk
- Start date
I think I see your problem.
lotus
stubborn rebel sheep!
Ah! Yes, that's what "understanding" is! When you "understand" something you can forget "all the data" about it.
I think I see your problem.
If it's $cientology, then it's not workable
So, If i understand correctly mearvk
''Understanding'', is when you learn something (collecting datas, is learning), understand it, then forget about the what who, , why, where .... ????? the situation that brought this cognition is forgotten ?????
Exactely what are $cientology, tautology and indoctrination
When you forgot the , what, why, how, can you then compare and review your ''understanding'' as stil being accurate with present datas, recent datas, new data, life motion,
as you don't have anymore the datas of your ''understanding'' for comparaison?????
I guess that's an insurance to blindness , misconceived and fix ideas
I try to imagine I understand someting without access to the datas related !
I can't :confused2: It's like erasing critical mind!
No computer would work with this ''logical'' pattern, neither an aware , analytical mind!
:confused2:
Last edited:
Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
Mearvk also invented da interwebz...or was that Myrklix?
Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
It's a joke, d00d. Cuz of the exchanges from a couple days ago.
Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
If it's $cientology, then it's not workable
So, If i understand correctly mearvk
''Understanding'', is when you learn something (collecting datas, is learning), understand it, then forget about the what who, , why, where .... ????? the situation that brought this cognition is forgotten ?????
Exactely what are $cientology, tautology and indoctrination
When you forgot the , what, why, how, can you then compare and review your ''understanding'' as stil being accurate with present datas, recent datas, new data, life motion,
as you don't have anymore the datas of your ''understanding'' for comparaison?????
I guess that's an insurance to blindness , misconceived and fix ideas
I try to imagine I understand someting without access to the datas related !
I can't :confused2: It's like erasing critical mind!
No computer would work with this ''logical'' pattern, neither an aware , analytical mind!
:confused2:
Don't remember if you said you were ever in or not, at any point. In any event, I'll just point out that some people did think they got something out of it. I'm one of them. I think, too, that I could and would have done just as well-or better- with Buddhism (to name one), and that there's stuff in Scn that's utter twaddle, sure. But I've been seeing posts where people are being told what their feelings and experiences are by other contributors. Thing is, we can't know what it was like for another person if we weren't there and don't know the individual.
lotus
stubborn rebel sheep!
Ah! Yes, that's what "understanding" is! When you "understand" something you can forget "all the data" about it.
Certainly!
Simplicityness of understandingness!
Last edited:
Gib
Crusader
Certainly!
Simplicityness of understandigness!
are those the thousands of words hubbard spoke in his recorded lectures, some turned into books,
that we are to understand?
Free Being Me
Crusader
$cientologists: blackwhite doubleplus doublespeak doublethink duckspeakers ...
circular built-in cult think stupid for those that relish pontificating stupid ... cringe.
gbuck
oxymoron
Certainly!
Simplicityness of understandigness!
Not Certainly!....but Certainty!
The path to the certaintyness of knowingness!
and....oh my god......pervadingness!
gbuck
oxymoron
Hi Merv,
I'm still trying to understand it. Obviously i need a bit of Data Alignment.
I think perhaps, what with you appearing to be the expert an' all, you could pleeese apply your genius to it so as to present it to your public in such an aligned way that they might possibly finally get what must be got!
and then we can all move on.
appreciate you bearing with us all.
You pick up a book on some technical subject. You see it has some 500 pages in it. You read the pages and new understanding is formed. You see that in retrospect that the book could be condensed down to between 10 and 50 pages. You have aligned the data so that the most salient facts are recognized as such. You have reduced the complexity of the data by forming new understanding.
gbuck
oxymoron
and...I love Alan Watts,
if.....................Wronnie had the voice of Alan Watts.
fuck................ I might still be in!
gbuck
oxymoron
Thanks Merv,
could have told me that at the beginning, but it's been interesting.
I feel we have been learning about communicating, and how difficult it is to be ……….simple
you got there in the end
Last edited:
Student of Trinity
Silver Meritorious Patron
Data compression certainly has something important to do with understanding. This is by no means a new insight, but I think it's a good insight, and it's not something that you see on every billboard. I'm not sure the term 'alignment' is really the best way to express this insight. 'Alignment' makes me think of straightening something out by changing its shape, and to me understanding is passive: one understands things as they are, without changing them. So I'd prefer a term like 'rotation'. One looks at things from a different perspective. This can in a sense be 'aligning', but I'd still prefer to avoid the suggestion of distortion that a find in the 'alignment' term.
Another thing that's important for understanding, it seems to me, is undoing the compression: being able to expand a brief explanation, filling in detail. To me, the test of understanding is explaining something in multiple degrees of detail. If I really understand something, I can give you the best one-sentence explanation of it; and the best one-paragraph explanation; the best one-page explanation; the best ten-page explanation; and so on. My thorough understanding lets me appreciate what things are too important to omit, at a given level, and what things are too minor to include. Or if I can't do that, I don't really understand the thing (whatever it is).
The thing that bothers me in mearvk's posts is that he seems to be missing the expansion part. He seems to be taking a one-sentence idea and expanding it into many sentences, but without actually adding much detail. He repeats platitudes in fancy new words, and writes unnecessarily lengthy sentences that don't say very much. This is cargo cult writing: it looks superficially like explanation, but it lacks the actual content.
For every person who really has a great insight, there are about a million people who have nothing very much, but kid themselves into thinking they have something great, by dressing it up in fancy words. The sad thing is that some of these people might really have been able to find something awesome, if they had just kept on searching, instead of quitting early to sit back and preen. If you're serious, you have to guard yourself ferociously against that danger, by bending over backwards to make sure you're not over-selling anything, even to yourself.
If you want to have a great insight, you have to write simply. Baldly, bluntly. Anything good will still be good that way — though it may take insight to see that it's good, when it's not wearing makeup; and it may take courage to say, "This may sound stupid when it's put so bluntly — but it's really not." That's painful, but I really think it's necessary. If you're seriously thinking about ideas, gas is poison gas.
Another thing that's important for understanding, it seems to me, is undoing the compression: being able to expand a brief explanation, filling in detail. To me, the test of understanding is explaining something in multiple degrees of detail. If I really understand something, I can give you the best one-sentence explanation of it; and the best one-paragraph explanation; the best one-page explanation; the best ten-page explanation; and so on. My thorough understanding lets me appreciate what things are too important to omit, at a given level, and what things are too minor to include. Or if I can't do that, I don't really understand the thing (whatever it is).
The thing that bothers me in mearvk's posts is that he seems to be missing the expansion part. He seems to be taking a one-sentence idea and expanding it into many sentences, but without actually adding much detail. He repeats platitudes in fancy new words, and writes unnecessarily lengthy sentences that don't say very much. This is cargo cult writing: it looks superficially like explanation, but it lacks the actual content.
For every person who really has a great insight, there are about a million people who have nothing very much, but kid themselves into thinking they have something great, by dressing it up in fancy words. The sad thing is that some of these people might really have been able to find something awesome, if they had just kept on searching, instead of quitting early to sit back and preen. If you're serious, you have to guard yourself ferociously against that danger, by bending over backwards to make sure you're not over-selling anything, even to yourself.
If you want to have a great insight, you have to write simply. Baldly, bluntly. Anything good will still be good that way — though it may take insight to see that it's good, when it's not wearing makeup; and it may take courage to say, "This may sound stupid when it's put so bluntly — but it's really not." That's painful, but I really think it's necessary. If you're seriously thinking about ideas, gas is poison gas.
BardoThodol
Silver Meritorious Patron
Was just closing up the house t go to bed when I realized I had neither signed out or read your post completely. Oops!
Perhaps it's a personality thing, but to me, understanding may well be passive as you expressed it, but for me, understanding is very, very active. The more I understand the more involved I want to be. I want to add to and work with those elements to create something more.
I can see a person simply perceiving and grasping the elements of a subject, but in-depth understanding requires a bit of analysis and synthesis. You have to work at it. And the harder the subject, the more work you have to put into the understanding. You have to actively take it apart and put it together. You have to deconstruct and reconstruct, noting what goes where and in what quantities.
Then, the what-if's begin. What if this went here? What if we put these in this order? What if we changed this or added this or subtracted this? Or ...
And that leads to more work trying to understand.
I get what you're saying about being able to reduce a subject to a sentence, or paragraph or dissertation. I had a fair amount of experience with doing that in college. But here's what I experienced in class.
Whenever I took a class I simply viewed the presented matter as a starting point. What was more important to me was what I could contribute to the material. The subject was never some passive thing sitting over there being mirrored in my mind. It was never passive.
I realize this has nothing to do especially with the OP or Merv, but I do find learning and understanding to be fascinating avenues of human growth. Not just in humans.
I've been feeding my koi and trying to grasp how they know I'm about to feed them. I've been experimenting with various stimuli to set them in motion. Such as making clicking sounds when they can't see me. I have no idea whether fish can hear, but they begin to make feeding patterns when I make the noise but can't be seen. Not of much importance to the world, but interesting to me. And a study in learning.
That same simplicity of stimuli leading to behavioral patterns is part of what we're doing here. What did Hubbard do to establish those mental and behavioral patterns in us? What do we do to one another to stimulate new patterns, establish new understanding? Or expand on old understanding?
Also, why do some individuals maintain those patterns despite information and understanding that should be sufficient to break or dissuade them?
Obviously, I don't understand because I'm mentally rebounding into new tangents every time my thoughts hit a new surface. Much like a handball.
Oh well, tomorrow is another day...
BardoThodol
Silver Meritorious Patron
Alan had something Wronnie didn't. Compassion.
And a conscience.
If Hubbard had had a conscience and compassion, Scientology would have been entirely different because it wouldn't have been filled with lies and salesmanship. Nor would there have been disconnection, harsh ethics, and all the other crap we love to hate so much.
degraded being
Sponsor
Certainly!
Simplicityness of understandingness!
That is has more beautifulness than words.
gbuck
oxymoron
I love Alan Watts but I also love J. Krishnamurti:
....... You can know yourself as you are only in relation
There is a learning which begins with self-knowledge, a learning which comes with awareness of your everyday activities: what you do, what you think, what your relationship with another is, how your mind responds to every incident and challenge of your daily life. If you are not aware of your response to every challenge in life, there is no self-knowledge. You can know yourself as you are only in relation to something, in relation to people, to ideas, and to things. If you assume anything about yourself, if you postulate that you are the Atman, or the higher self, for example, and start from that, which is obviously a form of conclusion, your mind is incapable of learning.
The Collected Works, Vol. X",252,Choiceless Awareness
He doesn't mess around.
