Understanding (n.) is a 'fusion' of past and present... thus the knower and object are not separate in the familiar fashion of empirical science.
Understanding (n.) is first of all: 'Oh, now I understand what you want in saying this. I have not said you are correct, but merely that I understand'.
Understanding (n.) is not concerned with agreement or mastering something that stands opposite you. It concerns only whether I am able to weigh and consider fairly what the other person thinks, recognizing that the other person could be right in what he or she says or actually wants to say!!!.
Understanding (n.) is not primarily a scientific comprehension of a detail... rather it is a practical understanding of our own lives and possibilities.
Understanding (n.) does not separate knower and object in the familiar fashion of empirical science... rather it views understanding as a 'fusion' of past and present'.
Understanding (n.) is the placing of oneself within a process of tradition.
Understanding (n.) is ultimately the wrongheaded submission to the authority of tradition.