Dear (X, Y, & Z),
Sometime something inside you melts and then you understand. I just wrote the following in the last hour. I'm so exhausted I'm not going to look at it again. It might be nonsense but it was like taking a great dump, I feel better. Constipation is an attachment disorder.
How I Understand Understanding
(A): "You CAN do it."
(B): ""YOU, can do you it".
(The punctuation of (A) is only a fraction of the picture. I can't post on Facebook the linguistic and logical notation that will reflect the discussion to follow.)
Spoken, there can be an emphasis on "can", as is the case with (A), and there is a case when you put the emphasis on "you", as is the case with (B).
In (A) we are doing something analogous to: "I'm supposed to encourage you now, but I'm really thinking about myself."
In (B) we are saying something analogous to: "I believe in you."
However, on the meta level the whole thing functions around a person's mind set.
Say (A) is said while the person is aware of the difference of (A) and (B):
This speaker is also aware of the difference while he is saying it, he is aware of: "the awareness of the awareness of the difference." It can be expressed mathematically as a repeating decimal, maybe?. This is the mental repeating decimal of the mystical.
This is the crux. 'Being' a repeating decimal is profound while .333333333 is less so. This is what understanding understanding is.
It is understanding a paradox.
It is understanding when "A & ~A" can be understood. The place of the excluded middle is perceptual?
That is what I'm going with here. We can have empirical knowledge of a paradox but we lack the tools to express it.
If you are feeling what I am saying, if I have transferred understanding of my understanding, then there is objective proof that we are feeling the objective feeling of the intangible.
How? Because you believe in me.
You are going to speak (B) when you speak to me. So we must have a mutual understanding on some level.
That is what I'm reaching towards. That objective subjectivity.