>>41334197
This is a conflict in definition, for I say that to picture something is to see in the mind, and if you cannot picture something you cannot see it in your mind.
To comprehend is to understand, is to be able to pull apart a ball of yarn with the instruments of thought. If a person cannot see the yarn, cannot see the instruments of the mind, how can they untangle it? If you say that it can be done over a long period even without sight, then you do not understand what I am talking about. This is not literal sight. To comprehend is to understand and you can't understand what you can't know and you can't know what you can't see. See being a general term here.
I ask you again, what knowledge can you give me? Faint whispers and pretty words arranged in patterns can be bought for cheap anywhere else on this board. What do you offer me? If you shall say that it is wrong for me to ask what I can be offered, then I tell you that I am not in the mood for games of the mind and that I want what I can touch with the instruments of my mind and only that which is practical, that I will not play with you unless by playing I clearly see that I gain something. No definition of the sin of want is to be effective against me.
I have asked you a question, do you have an answer?