I'm not sure how much
anyone is able to grok what's been transpiring in my life over the
past year and a half. I'd say, as long as I feel that I am
"learning, healing, and knowing" then that's a good thing. This
whole post can also serve as an explanation of another's own opinion of my inability/incapacity
to grok much of, say, medicine and science, which may be more his or her fields.
Concerning the above sentiment I'd say processes of amelioration are often in the subjective eye of the beholder; viz., confined to particular and accepted givens, depending on how well one's understanding represents a true, accurate, and complete depiction regarding a set of circumstances (and one's capacity to truly grok them in toto).
For me, "knowing" takes the following, typical trajectory: getting wind of something (e.g., by hearing or by reading about it); personally experiencing the phenomenon; being injured, perplexed, or at least discombobulated by it; going through recovery from the experience; returning to a wholeness; and learning (the hard way) that "what I learned" was true, good and beautiful (in its own way) or NOT. This learning can then become integrated into my knowing as something I adopt or reject.
Maybe folks who know me have noted a certain superficiality to my character wherein I am too lazy to apply myself in order to flesh out the details of something or other. I usually slough this off by saying, "I'm a generalist, not a detail guy." It may be I just do not care because I consider the subject matter under consideration to be foreclosed by something else I have already deemed as either overwhelming it or resolving it; or, my abject non-interest could be because I have absolutely no interest in it and cannot rally any interest in it.
Some may say that such stances indicate a closed-mindedness, a failure to engage in critical thinking. My counter to that opinion is to determine whether the particular impasse is simply a failure of my curiosity, a limitation of my innate abilities to be able to properly consider and judge it, or a subjective conclusion as to irrelevancy and immateriality regarding its particular contextual significance.
A shorter, simpler explanation of what's expressed in the last two paragraphs may also be that I have yet to experience it--either from apathy, difficulty of access, or being excluded from doing so -- and therefore I do not "know" it (as knowing is explained and defined in the third paragraph above).
Hey that must be why I've always loved Jimi Hendrix and his Experience! Eat your heart out, Joe Rogan!
On the other hand, an even simpler explanation is that we can look at all of the above perambulations as limiting aspects of the false self, due to a ricocheting off all of the four legs of the false self*: intellect, ego, selfishness, and self-righteousness.
Concerning all that I have stated above, I rest my case as to me, myself and I. NOTE: Cf. "attached humanist" v. "detached scientist", or vis-a-versa, while knowing, of course, that the world is not only this and only that but often (and often ideally) a balanced synergy of both.
* See, Idries Shah, The Commanding Self (1994).
