Human knowledge begins with observation. It requires an act of mental integration — the integration of observed reality — and this act, in turn, is not automatic but requires effort.
Understanding in the sense of comprehension is the act of grasping or of apprehending some fact or facts of reality.
The act of grasping is an act of apprehension. They are synonymous.
The act of apprehension is the act of integrating — specifically, of integrating newly discovered information or data into what is already known.
Integrating is synthesizing.
Synthesizing is blending.
For instance, when a child perceives that pushing a red wagon results in that red wagon rolling across the floor, this same child in retaining that observation (which is information, which is data) will then know that she can push that wagon again to watch it roll across the floor. But imagine that the next time she tries, the child’s father has removed one of the wagon wheels to repair it, so that this time when the child pushes the wagon, she observes it does not roll across the floor, as it had the previous time. Perhaps she investigates this herself and, depending upon her age and her context of knowledge, she figures out why. Or perhaps her father is observing her, and he then shows this little one why it didn’t roll this time around. Perhaps he even fixes the wagon wheel right then and there, so that he can have her push it again now that it’s fixed, and he watches her observe and then integrate and grasp what has just transpired. All of this is an act of observation and mental synthesis on the child’s part. It is the act of mentally processing observed data.
All of which is by way of illustrating, in compendiated and abbreviated form, how humans obtain actual knowledge. My example was an illustration of the perceptual, but the same principle applies to the conceptual as well:
Imagine the same child, at age two, learning what the word “crayon” means and then learning to distinguish a crayon from, for example, a stick of sidewalk chalk. The specific word or words may initially, in any given language, be arbitrary — “crayon” and “chalk” — but this does not ultimately matter: the referent in reality — the thing known as a “crayon” and the thing known as “chalk” — are real entities. This is why we’re able to learn new languages: the specific words are different, but the referent is the same.
The actual referents in my example — crayon and chalk — they possess similarities and differences, and observing and learning these similarities and differences is largely what it means to understand, comprehend, apprehend. This is precisely why the old Greek system of definitions and classification, which is still in use today, specifies “genus” (similarity) and “differentia” (differences).
All of this belongs to the science of epistemology — from the Ancient Greek word episteme, which means “knowledge.”
Humans do not obtain knowledge by authoritarian decree — not true knowledge. Humans may accept and believe things based upon decree, but these things do not and cannot qualify as actual knowledge. They are beliefs.
True knowledge requires an act of independently processing, which is to say, I repeat, grasping, which is to say: it requires an act of individualized integration.
The act of mentally grasping — of integrating — is by definition an individualized process.
No one can perform it for another.
It is something each person must do for her or himself. It is the very locus of individuality and free will. The father can show the little one how he repairs the wagon-wheel and that it thereafter rolls, but to truly understand and to know, the little one must independently perform the act of observation and integration required. She must pay attention — or, more precisely, she must exert the effort of attention.
To expect people to subvert this process — to expect it for any reason — or to for any reason ask people to subvert this process is to violate the nature of conceptualization and the faculty of human reason.
When people demand that you accept as fact what they tell you or declare, whether you’ve independently sifted through the relevant material yourself or not, they are demanding that you violate the epistemological nature of the human mind.
To ignore reality and to ignore observed facts is to similarly violate the epistemological nature of thought.
The opposite of what I’ve described — with the child and red wagon-wheel — is to accept a given thing upon faith. The thing or person or people in whom one puts one’s faith is ultimately irrelevant to the context here. It could be the followers of Jim Jones or the Pope of Rome, or it could be the followers of Barack Obama or Joe Biden, or it could be the followers of Donald Trump or Vladimir Lenin or the United Nation or anyone or anything else. The principle is what’s at issue, and that principle is this:
Does one know something because one has sifted through the relevant data and learned the information? Or, rather, does one merely believe it to be true based upon faith? Is one bullied into believing, whether by consensus or no, or is one encouraged to go through the material and process it, to learn it?
Concerning the Wuhan virus and the Gene Transfer injections meant to inoculate against this virus, I suggest this: discover through your own independent reasoning mind what sort of vaccines these are — their genus and differentia qua vaccines — and discover if there’s been enough time to test them for possible longterm side-effects. I encourage all people to seek to learn this.
Ask always if what you’re being told, about possible side-effects and death and autoimmune disorders and so on — ask if what you’re being told, by people in positions of power, is it accurate and how might you best determine?
Is there good evidence showing that mass vaccinations drive new variants by selecting for them? Is it a coincidence that the new variants emerged concurrently with the first vaccination clinical trials?
Why is open inquiry being deliberately shut-off — by social-media platforms and upon the recommendation of government agencies?
Why on earth — why? — would anyone ridicule and marginalize parents who express safety concerns about their children being injected with genetic material? or pregnant women expressing these same concerns?
I think that this one phenomena alone — the concerted effort to shutdown inquiry, whether through ridicule, marginalization, or outright censorship — is an extraordinarily relevant and revealing piece of data.
Have we been deliberately cutoff from certain knowledge-flows?
I’m asking here that we seek to know answers — not just believe but know.
It asks a lot, I do realize. I truly do. It asks a great deal of one’s time and one’s individualized effort, because there is an incredible amount of blubber to flense through. But so much is at stake.
Never before in human history have hundreds of millions of people been injected with Gene Transfer platforms and never has such a mass vaccination program occurred with such a paucity of long-term observational studies, and all for a virus that can be effectively treated with early, non-invasive treatment protocols which, in the experience of many, many doctors and their patients, have saved many, many lives.
And I hope never again.
Quoting this good doctor:
“So don’t anyone tell me that without actually studying it, you know what this vaccine is going to do to the developing embryo. You do not! You have no idea. You reckless idiots! All you physicians who are giving it to pregnant women, you are absolute reckless idiots! You need to be strung up by your thumbs and struck off. Any females who are thinking of having this vaccine, who might get pregnant around the same time or who are already pregnant, please don’t. It might be fine. But you don’t really want ‘might be fine’ as the assurance. I’m very worried.”