I'd have to say that I really liked how Mason divided different approaches toward understanding into differing categories in an attempt to make some order out of a complex subject. Mason appears to be leaning toward Elgin's side in saying that understanding comes in layers and levels, and that understanding is interconnected between types of understanding. I did have some difficulty getting through the first part of the chapter, however, when he was describing knowing ourselves as compared to knowing others. It's a common psychological slogan that we have to know ourselves before we can know others. I understand that at some point, you might feel like you know enough about another person that you feel satiated in your facts. But I have a harder time believing that at some point, you'd want to be done discovering information about yourself. I don't mean this in an egotistical way or to say that knowing yourself is always a better venture than other pursuits. However, I have a tough time deciding when I would feel that I knew enough about myself.
The pieces we read for Monday had a short discussion talking about how art and science are correlated and should be connected mentally. While I do completely agree with that sentiment, Mason brings up art and science in his first chapter. He talks about how understanding and knowledge are closer in mathematics, but they seem further away in something like art to me. To understand mathematics sounds almost like a misnomer, but understanding a piece of art is something closer to attainable. The two crafts are alike in that formal training can help understanding, that there is skill and detail involved, but since some parts of the sciences and mathematics are devoid of many emotions while carrying out the act, this seems to be where the understandings begin to part. We can say that a piece of art or music really speaks to us, that it elicits feelings and emotions from our psyche, but saying the same about math is harder. We can be excited about the subject itself, but that's not the same.