I have a strong desire to comprehend stuff

I have a strong desire to comprehend stuff

I claim that comprehending is a hierarchy and can usefully be thought of as a pyramid. At the base of the pyramid is awareness that is followed by consciousness, which is awareness plus attention. Knowing follows consciousness and understanding is at the pinnacle of the pyramid.

Two aspects of this comprehension idea deserve elaboration: consciousness and understanding.

When I was a youngster, probably seven or eight, my father took me with him when he drove to a local farm to pick corn for use in the café the family managed. We drove for a significant amount of time down local dirt roads to a farm with a field of growing corn.

We went into the fields with our bushel baskets and filled them with corn-on-the-cob. Dad showed me how to choose the corn to pick and how to snatch the cob from the stalk.

On the drive home I was amazed to observe the numerous fields of corn we passed on the way back to town. I can distinctly remember thinking to myself, why did I not see these fields of corn while we were driving to the farm earlier?

Today I have an answer to that question. I now say that on the way to the farm I was aware of corn-on-the-cob but on the way back home I was conscious of corn-on-the-cob. There was a very significant difference in my perceptions regarding corn-on-the-cob before and after the experience.

We are aware of many things but conscious of only a small number of things. We were aware of Iraq before the war but now we are conscious of Iraq. There is a very important distinction between awareness and consciousness and it is important for us to recognize this difference.

To be conscious of a matter signifies a focus of the intellect. Consciousness of a matter is the first step, which may lead to an understanding of the matter. Consciousness of a matter is a necessary condition for knowing and for understanding of that matter. Consciousness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for knowing and understanding to take place.

When discussing a topic about which I am knowledgeable most people will, because they recognize the words I am using, treat the matter as old stuff. They recognize the words therefore they consider the matter as something they already know and do not consider as important. Because they are aware of the subject it is difficult to gain their attention when I attempt to go beyond the shallowness of their perception. The communication problem seems to be initially overcoming their awareness and reaching consciousness.

Understanding is a long step beyond knowing. Understanding is the creation of meaning. Understanding represents a rare instance when intellection and emotion join hands and places me in an empathetic position with a domain of knowledge. When I understand I have connected the dots and have created a unity that includes myself. I have created something that is meaningful, which means that I have placed that domain of knowledge within my domain that I call my self. I understand because I have a very intimate connection with a model of reality that I have created. It is that eureka moment that happens rarely but is a moment of ecstasy. As Carl Sagan says “understanding is a kind of ecstasy”.

[b]When I read I almost always read non fiction. I have tried to read fiction and to learn from reading what is considered to be good literature. However, my effort to read good literature fails because I thing that learning by reading good literature is a very inefficient means for gaining knowledge and understanding.

I claim that I can acquire more knowledge in one hour by reading non fiction than I can while reading good literature for ten hours. That is, I claim that learning by reading non fiction is ten times more efficient than learning by reading fiction, i.e. good literature.

Do you agree that acquiring knowledge by reading non fiction is ten times as efficient as from reading fiction?[/b]

Sometimes, yes.

In fiction you immerse yourself in a world. You learn more by ‘being there’ in your mind about said world than you would by reading a sheet of facts pertaining to the parameters of the setting of a novel, and how the story played out within.

It’s a different type of learning though, I don’t know if it is ‘comprehension’. Can you comprehend a story? The moral of it perhaps… but the story itself?

I’m tempted to say that if one wants to comprehend something, it’s not really something which can be compared to non-fiction attempts at it.

A fictional book about oranges would have a story, and a holistic dynamic to its essence. A non-fiction book about oranges would present factual information about that topic and perhaps a few different historical connections. I feel like one is a concept captured in a (perhaps to some) interesting historical perspective, and the other is the interplay of concepts captured in an aesthetic dynamic.

To comprehend a ‘art’ is a philosophical argument I often change my mind on…

Gobbo

I was discussing this idea with another reader and we thought that it would be interesting to take two high school seniors of equal ability and have one read Othello and the other go to Google and tell each that there would be an exam in one hour about the subject of tragedy and jealousy.

I feel like the google one might come out with more ‘facts’ about the dynamics of tragedy and jealousy…

But that’s comprehending tragedy and jealousy, not understanding ‘Othello’.

Or am I wrong? I am not sure.

My memory tells me that these are two important elements of this tale. If I had to write an essay about Othello right now without any review I would wrap my understanding of this tale around these two concepts. Of course my last reading of this story must have been ten years ago.

So essentially how well we understand the individual concepts (tragedy, jealousy) within the story dynamic -is- our ability to understand the holistic nature of the story Othello… (the dynamic)

Interesting… but there is the ‘whole is greater than the part sum’ thing.

There is still something which doesn’t sit right about ‘comprehending’ a story, as opposed to comprehending it’s parts. I think we are essentially sliding into an aesthetics/art debate, not that is a bad thing.

What if we phrase it like this:

Gobbo has different personality aspects that can exist on their own:

Arrogance
Genius
Etc.

But to comprehend ‘me’ is something entirely different. Is it not? Can a system be comprehended, or merely observed from one perspective? Or is that comprehension proper… ?

Its been a while since I’ve done philosophy :laughing:

Old Gobbo

I guess that I can be called a reductionist.

I think that understanding is reached through a long journey that consists of breaking the subject down into its component parts and becoming knowledgeable of each component and then create a meaningful whole out of all this knowledge.

It might be compared with putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Of course one can get an overall comprehension of the plot and the characters after one or two readings and this is the first appreciation of the tale. However to take and create a meaning out of the tale requires a much longer effort and that effort still does not always finish with a moment of understanding, i.e. that eureka moment when water becomes ice.

Good non-fiction books

The following is a quickie from Wickie regarding some of the best in non-fiction reading.

These books listed below are some selections from “Modern Library 100 best non-fiction” from Wickie.

An American Dilemma
The American Language
The Ants
The Art of Memory
The Autobiography of Malcolm X
The Civil War: A Narrative
The Double Helix
The Education of Henry Adams
The Elements of Style
Eminent Victorians
The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money
The Golden Bough
Good-Bye to All That
The Guns of August
Homage to Catalonia
In Cold Blood (book)
Mark Twain’s Autobiography
The Mismeasure of Man
Notes of a Native Son
The Open Society and Its Enemies
Principia Mathematica
The Right Stuff
The Rise of the West
A Room of One’s Own
Silent Spring
The Strange Death of Liberal England
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
A Study of History
A Theory of Justice
Up From Slavery
The Varieties of Religious Experience

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Modern_Library_100_best_non-fiction
Category: Non-fiction books

I don’t think you are giving people enough credit here. It seems awfully pretentious to say that others will naturally engage in a shallow reading of your ideas, and that you have to make a special effort to overcome that. Of course, something like that must happen some of the time, but I don’t think its fair of you to say that most people read this way naturally.

Non-fiction is very good for gaining specific knowledge about states of affairs in the world we live in. Certainly, if that is your only goal, then by all means stick to non-fiction. But obviously this is not the only reason to read. Fiction also has valuable, and I think you get a clearer view of the human condition and our world by reading a healthy mix of fiction and non-fiction. In some cases you can learn things from fiction that you cannot learn from non-fiction. I strongly doubt that you can learn the same things that you can learn about the human condition from reading a John Steinbeck book by reading a non-fiction book attempting to express the same things. I recommend that you abandon this false opposition between fiction and non-fiction.