I believe I “understand” (LOL)…because it may be similar to what Deleuze, I think, had to say, which was that to understand means to “stand under”. Deleuze, however, was more focused on how systems of power operate, whereas I think in the case of Lacan it has more to do with the principle of being able to think an original thought without being guided down typical paths and alleyways.

Understanding is a constraint to accept the typical patterns of thinking — the ‘logic” by which a particular problem it typically solved. Our minds deceive us that we are the ones in the position of knowledge, when we hear somebody relate their story to us. We think that we know, better than they do, what is “really wrong” and “how to fix it”. But all we do in that case, is to provide another iteration of the problem, and at times to magnify it. We are not actually fixing the problem when we believe we have obtained a superior perspective. The structure of our understanding —although reinforced by the fact that other perceive reality in a similar way — leads only to a dead end, where the typical way of viewing things is given primacy over the real problem.

Consider, for instance, my own case — born in Rhodesia, through no fault of my own. I could go to a therapist with my typical complaint that others invade my personal space, betray me, and devalue me, all because they think I have not learned enough yet about bourgeois principles of equality.

But what a typical listener hears from this is quite the opposite to anything new or perceptive. They hear, “This person, Jennifer, is constantly in need of further education on the tenets of equality — which she still hasn’t managed to internalize, despite multiple people telling her to change her ways.”

This is to say, humanity in general is primed to process information at the level of their understanding. They see the pattern that “makes sense”, and they aim, as much as possible to find a further iteration of that pattern. The outcome is to direct me along paths of being re-educated about right and wrong, good and bad, equality and inequality.

But “understanding” misleads us generally. Because what we do when we “understand, we reinforce already existing patterns of thinking and responses that are not new at all. The iteration that I don’t know about “equality” and have never heard about it, does not assist the situation, which is born out of others’ perceptions, namely the feeling that they are obliged to place measures of correction over me, as well as to prove that the present values dominate over those of the past.

Given that most people can only make another iteration of what they have previously heard (that is, to express themselves in terms of the prevailing patterns, and to repeat them), how is it possible to really come up with something new? To be able to “perceive” means breaking with the patterns of the past. That is to say, one cannot presume to dwell at the mere level of “understanding”.

I believe I “understand” (LOL)…because it may be similar to what Deleuze, I think, had to say, which was that to understand means to “stand under”. Deleuze, however, was more focused on how systems of power operate, whereas I think in the case of Lacan it has more to do with the principle of being able to think an original thought without being guided down typical paths and alleyways.

Understanding is a constraint to accept the typical patterns of thinking — the ‘logic” by which a particular problem it typically solved. Our minds deceive us that we are the ones in the position of knowledge, when we hear somebody relate their story to us. We think that we know, better than they do, what is “really wrong” and “how to fix it”. But all we do in that case, is to provide another iteration of the problem, and at times to magnify it. We are not actually fixing the problem when we believe we have obtained a superior perspective. The structure of our understanding —although reinforced by the fact that other perceive reality in a similar way — leads only to a dead end, where the typical way of viewing things is given primacy over the real problem.

Consider, for instance, my own case — born in Rhodesia, through no fault of my own. I could go go a therapist with my typical complaint that others invade my personal space, betray me, and devalue me, all because they think I have not learned enough yet about bourgeois principles of equality.

But what a typical listener hears from this is quite the opposite to anything new or perceptive. They hear, “This person, Jennifer, is constantly in need of further education on the tenets of equality — which she still hasn’t managed to internalize, despite multiple people telling her to change her ways.”

This is to say, humanity in general is primed to process information at the level of their understanding. They see the pattern that “makes sense”, and they aim, as much as possible to find a further iteration of that pattern (in order to save me from myself). The outcome is to direct me along paths of being re-educated about right and wrong, good and bad, equality and inequality.

But “understanding” misleads us generally. Because what we do when we “understand, we reinforce already existing patterns of thinking and responses that are not new at all. The iteration that I don’t know about “equality” and have never heard about it, does not assist the situation, which is born out of others’ perceptions, namely the feeling that they are obliged to place measures of correction over me, as well as to prove that the present values dominate over those of the past.

Given that most people can only make another iteration of what they have previously heard (that is, to express themselves in terms of the prevailing patterns, an to repeat them), how is it possible to really come up with something new? To be able to “perceive” means breaking with the patterns of the past. That is to say, one cannot presume to dwell at the mere level of “understanding”.

Very good question!

in his four posthumously published volumes, Nietzsche sets up several outlines as to how some larger chunks of society express themselves in terms of art, politics and social attitudes. He also gives them a blueprint to modernize their ideas along lines that are no longer theological. He lays out a blueprint for the “modern soul” to express their natures in a manner that is no longer morally squeamish.

The main idea here is to see human relations in the terms he coined, “will to power”, rather than in terms of some kind of mysterious agenda that would require us to morally perfect ourselves (in other words instead of implicit and explicit theological ideologies).

His conflict with the relatively prevailing theological perspective of his time was in the idea that we are not supposed to improve ourselves, because everything that exists has a measure of power that is unchanging, and that we remain, in this sense, true to ourselves despite many cycles of growth and destruction. We are what we are, moving toward a direction that is driven by an underlying agenda that we all have, toward development (increasing our power, not increasing our morality or our “knowledge”). But this growth spurt that we all have a drive to embrace is no more and no less than the quantum of power already within us. (In other words, we merely actualize what is already “there” in its seed form, through seeking our own expansion and design to master what is weaker.)

Now the currently controversial or despised term “weakness” is, in this case, very much a relative term, based in the notion of an underlying sense that we are constantly on the move and trying to master ourselves, and new situations, in order to improve. But there is also an understanding here that human hierarchies implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) are built on the notion that those who gain mastery will in turn dominate those who do not do so.

A point to bear in mind here is that Nietzsche does express a certain revulsion toward a very direct form of “will to power”. He despises militarism and actual physical dominance, but nonetheless he wants to see those who are actually psychologically astute (because of self-mastery) come into a position of obtaining actual social power. It is to this end that he writes in ways that engage with many social perspectives (and sometimes promulgate them), because he wants to find a way through the forest of modern styles of thinking, to the point that “the higher man” will earn his role and place in a more natural style of society.

In all I think Nietzsche finds (as I do) that the “higher man” — one who has more complexity and drive to create “higher culture” is the meat in the sandwich between the earnestly pious masses (who are not so innocent at all in their piety, as they seek scapegoats) and those who employ power crudely and mechanistically (like the bourgeois and the nationalists). In the four volumes, which involve a multidimensional and multifaceted look at how “modern” society is shaping up to be, Nietzsche’s main concern is the suffering of the “higher man” and how it might be vindicated.