Starting in reverse, we start with the conclusion that our conclusion is the beginning of an understanding.

An understanding that has happened and the only “evidence” is a conclusion we start with. To change conclusions is to change an understanding.

How many kinds of understandings are there? The question has many answers but the debate is between one and two.

An understanding is of one kind — deterministic state of affairs propagate the next iteration of reality that we experience as passing moments. This understanding is deterministic, and only deterministic, because the “creation” of understanding is built on intersecting moments in time. The moment a moment intersect in such a way that understanding is created, a moment is created that will be part of the next moment. In this movement, “understanding” is not a force that joins moments or intersects them. Rather, understanding is a by-product of the movement. At its tail, understanding looks at the trajectory of each moment as they pass and it itself is created.

An understanding of two kinds — creation is a process made up of its ingredients. Each creation, as an ingredient, has a concluding understanding. The understanding of process has a recursive after-effect where understanding acts as process. This understanding is paradoxical and thus potentially misleading (why one would be persuaded to think one was the answer). Paradoxical because there is no way to understand the after-effects (the creation of understanding) without relying on one understanding that has already been created. Testing the two, one with the other, leads to indecisive conclusions. Testing the created understanding with after effect just leads to the creation of the after effect. Testing the after effects with created understanding leads to dogma.

When we talk about social circles, part of their persistent relevance, through generations of people, is the perspective (understanding) passed down between families, townships, cities, states, countries. Intermingled between the singular understanding that makes up cultural norms are differing opinions, wild assumptions, and nefarious intentions.

Historians gather these up as objectively as their tools allow them to created a historical understanding. The politicians use the norms create political understandings. Elders talking to kids try to encapsulate wise understandings. Parents to their kids may instill practical understandings. Therapists counseling clients may instill mindful understandings. Hustlers finessing may instill trickful understandings.

We understand understandings (epistemology) as a tool that behaves in how it is used. How is it used? Is it used by means of mechanical law? Who are we to somehow tell mechanical law what to do? Regardless, it is convincing to understand understanding as something we can control with our intentions. Where these intentions come from and why we have them could be understood by various tools. The only convincing outcome is our understanding of them.

When we share tools with others, we share perspectives. We see the same thing and react to the same thing. We deny the perspectives of those that don’t see with us.


blooms — crazy rants masked as abstract experimental philosophy. s/o CS Peirce