Knowing vs. Understanding

Today on Democracy Now I heard the noted Chilean economist Manfred Max-Neef’s speak in an interview with Amy Goodman. He said:
“We have reached a point in our evolution in which we know a lot [but] understand very little. Never in human history has there been such an accumulation of knowledge like in the last 100 years. Look how we are. What was that knowledge for? What did we do with it?
“And the point is that knowledge alone is not enough, that we lack understanding. And the difference between knowledge and understanding, I can give it as an example. Let us assume that you have studied everything that you can study, from a theological, sociological, anthropological, biological and even biochemical point of view, of a human phenomenon called love.
“So the result is that you will know everything that you can know about love. But sooner or later, you will realize that you will never understand love unless you fall in love. What does that mean?
“That you can only attempt to understand that of which you become a part [ital. mine]. If we fall in love…we are much more than two. When you belong, you understand. When you’re separated, you can accumulate knowledge. And that is — that’s been the function of science. Now, science is divided into parts, but understanding is holistic.”
I would like to suggest a few connections between what  Max-Neef has said above and language study:
1. Max-Neef said: “…When you belong, you understand…”. We could say, “…when our students belong (become an actual part of the language we are teaching) they understand…”.
2. Max-Neef said: “…When you’re separated, you can accumulate knowledge…”. We could say, “…when our students are separated (are looking at the form of language as if it is under a microscope), they can accumulate knowledge…”.
3. Max-Neef said: “…sooner or later, you will realize that you will never understand love unless you fall in love…”. We could say, “…our students will never understand the language we teach them unless they fall into the language itself (as opposed to looking how it is built as if under a microscope).”
4. Max-Neef said: “…you can only attempt to understand that of which you become a part.” We could say, “…our students can only attempt to understand to the extent that they experience, become a part of, the language they are studying.”
Just some comparisons I wanted to point out. I don’t think that what we are experiencing is isolated to language acquisition. I think that the archetypal nature of what this aclaimed economist has said today is echoed in many other fields. The overlapping concepts outlined above can only point to one thing – healing.
(see the Democracy Now web page for the entire transcript of this interview – it is the only time I have felt that I understood what is happening now in global economics.)