An ideal understanding would ultimately result in each party’s unthinkingly going along with the other’s experience—a state of uncritical passivity coupled with the most complete subjectivity and lack of social responsibility. Understanding carried to such lengths is in any case impossible, for it would require the virtual identification of two different individuals. Sooner or later the relationship reaches a point where one partner feels he is being forced to sacrifice his own individuality so that it may be assimilated by that of the other. This inevitable consequence breaks the understanding, for understanding presupposes the integral preservation of the individuality of both partners. It is therefore advisable to carry understanding only to the point where the balance between understanding and knowledge is reached, for understanding at all costs is injurious to both partners. [C.G. Jung, The Undiscovered Self, pp. 63-64, emphasis mine]
Understanding and knowledge are, in a way, complementary. When you try to understand someone’s point of view, you begin by applying “principles based on general experience.” But, inevitably, you will find that these principles do not completely describe the particular situation at hand. There are always outside factors and other variables to consider. The more you seek an understanding the further away from principles—the foundation of objective knowledge—you must go and the more subjective the situation becomes. This subjectification is what “feels” like understanding but it is, at the same time, a disadvantage because it isolates you from the environment. This is not a desirable result because it removes knowledge from the equation altogether—the only thing that is relevant is the subjective experiences of the other. There is no longer a balance between understanding and knowledge.
So, what does it all mean? For me to really, truly understand your point of view, I will need to take on all your biases, prejudices, preconceptions, etc.—all your subjective content—which will necessarily require me to throw out all objective knowledge. In essence, I must become identified with you—assimilated by your individuality—so that I no longer exist. Only then can I have total understanding. But this is, needless to say, highly undesirable.
The rub is, as Jung points out, we have a preconception, an expectation, that we can reach an understanding without losing our individuality but this is not the case. We think that total understanding is an attainable goal and fuss and fret (or worse) when it’s not reached but we resist at each step along the way the very understanding we desire by demanding that we retain our individuality.
So, what is the answer? Ultimately, I think, the answer is to adjust our expectations and, rather than seek complete understanding, seek a balance (this “tension of the opposites” is classic Jung) between knowledge and understanding. Of course, this will hardly seem a very satisfying answer to most for there really is no resolution in this goal. No one has changed their mind; no one has been convinced they are wrong; we still have two individuals with differing opinions instead of a consensus. We still have Darwinists and Creationists. We still have Atheists and Evangelicals. We still have Capitalists and Communists. But, is it not better to have two individuals living in a balance between understanding and knowledge than to have one individual totally assimilated—totally against his will—into the other?
Recent Comments