Ch. 3

Mason seems to grasp the relationship between knowledge and understanding as being contingent on each other certainly.  His argument concerning their relationship is addressed on page 40 when he says, "...questions about the priority if understanding only arise, and only make sense, in contrast with past claims made for knowledge."  He goes on to argue that to even conceptualize the two similarly, "would be misguided." (40) I think that Mason sees that in the past knowledge and understanding to have been used interchangeably or at best as two sides of the same coin.  I think he argues that that they need to be comprehended distinctly and then be utilized together.  Kind of like that mathematical diagram with two circles that partially overlap of which the name escapes me.