I wrote previously of understanding in both the “acquisition of” and the “dissemination of” (To understand and be understood). However, in my expression of what I understood (and still understand), I did not intend to place the focus or emphasis upon the “self.” My intention was not to emphasize the individual as the origination of understanding. Rather, I find the necessity of something external, distinct, and separate from “self” in order for the activity of understanding to fully take place. One may be capable of understanding a “something” but might be better acclimated to understand a “someone.” In the “dissemination of” what an individual understands comes the potential to be understood. It is precisely in the activity of “to be understood” where a “someone” is addressed. One does not expect to be understood by a “something” as one does not perceive their own “self” as a “something.” An individual perceives their own being as a “someone” and does not expect to be understood by none other than a fellow “someone.” Even when perceiving to be understood by a supposed “something,” attributes are ascribed to that “something” that would make it more like a “someone” than not. Thus the model here (as applicable to what I wrote previously) is not one of arriving at certainty, comprehending fully, or obtaining bits of exhaustive knowledge; the model is that of Relationship, with particular emphasis on selflessness instead of selfishness.

In a model of Relationship, understanding would approach an object-to-be-know more like a subject-to-be-known (the term subject seen as a “someone”).  Understanding then becomes less interested in “self.” This understanding is appropriate since its selflessness is dependent on a subject-to-be-known. This subjectification (subject-to-be-known instead of object-to-be-known) then promotes an abandoning of, or at least removing focus away from, “self.” Satisfaction from understanding would likewise be found more abundant outside the “self,” as opposed to within one’s “self.” Disassociation would be near non-existent due to association being an intricate part of relationship. It is when looking into the “self” as the knower and primary source of understanding that satisfaction becomes disillusionment and the disassociation inherent thereafter. Attempting to understand an “other” as an object will only setup disappointment since the approach is immediately conceptualized egocentrically; merely looking inward toward the “self” in constructing a narrow view of the “other.” Hence, the disillusionment which leads to a grotesque misunderstanding of the “other” then produces a false notion of “self” and “other,” especially in terms of relationship. This false understanding is then what disassociates one’s concept of “self” with the concept of “other.” “Self” and “other” can be understood in dissimilar terms which then creates the disillusionment and disassociation from the very inception of “other” as a concept (that is to say that this occurs when objectifying a person rather than the subjectifying them as noted above).

Understanding is relational as love is relational. Both understanding and love can become focused on the “self” in very similar ways. However, both also feature the opportunity to be selfless and refrain from egocentricism. If love is thought of in terms of ego connecting with ego, does not each ego conceptualize the “other” as an object instead of a subject? Thus leading to disillusionment and disassociation in the same manner as noted in the previous paragraph? Yet when removing focus off of “self,” no alignment is needed to facilitate love because unselfish concern for the “other” serves as a greater means of love in action, in actuality, in a state of existence. That is, love is found not only in the end goal brought about by some action but also in the means to that end, love in action. Love is not something built up but rather comes into existence in the means and ends. This perspective of love coincides perfectly with the idea that “at the moment one knows an enemy well enough to defeat them, they love them.” (C. Johnson’s post The struggle to Understand and be…) To love an enemy could then be seen as the denial of “self” and likened to selfless consideration and attention for the “other.” Just as understanding is better developed in a self-sacrificial model of relationship, love also develops to a greater maturity when denying our “self” (our heart).

In the statement, “the only way to align our ‘selves’ in this world appears to be through love,” the focus is mainly on “self” and an internalized, egocentric understanding of the word “love.” However, phrases such as “tune our hearts,” “outlooks become the same” and “focus becomes the same” are consistent with a relationship model of understanding as described above. If one does not objectify the “other” then a heart need not be tuned into similar conceptions of “self” but merely aligned through selfless consideration of the “other.” Outlook and focus are then only descriptive of one’s selfless concern for the “other.”

Through such a manner of love and understanding, I believe we do “connect on some intangible level…”