The Puzzle of Knowing

Why being understood is harder than it looks

There's a word I want to start with, and I want you to look at it carefully before you read past it.

Information.

Say it slowly: in-form-ation. Something given form. Which means, before it was information, it was something else. It was knowing without a container. An idea sitting in the mind, whole and complete, before anyone tried to put it into words.

That distinction matters more than it might seem at first.

Before the Words

We tend to use knowing, information, ideas, and language as if they're all pointing at the same thing. Interchangeable. Synonymous. But they're not. They exist in a kind of sequence, and understanding that sequence changes how you think about nearly every conversation you've ever had.

Here's what I mean. Think of a time you understood something deeply, really understood it, but couldn't quite explain it yet. Maybe it was a feeling you had about a decision, or an insight that came to you in the middle of the night. You knew the thing. You had it. But it hadn't taken shape as language yet. It was pre-verbal. Pre-informational.

That state is not ignorance. It's actually quite the opposite. It's knowing in its rawest form.

The moment you try to communicate it, something has to happen. That wholeness, that complete image in your mind, has to be broken apart. You have to pick it up, turn it over, find its edges and seams, and pull it into pieces small enough to hand to someone else one at a time. Words. Sentences. Paragraphs. Each one is like a puzzle piece carrying some fragment of the original image.

Language is the puzzle box.

Someone Else's Hands

And here's where it gets interesting.

When you hand someone those puzzle pieces, they have to reassemble them. On their own. Using their own hands, their own table, their own prior understanding of what the finished picture is supposed to look like. And since they weren't there when the original image formed in your mind, they're working from the pieces alone.

Sometimes the reassembly is close. Close enough that you feel understood. You say something and the other person nods and you can tell the image behind their eyes looks something like the one behind yours. That's a small miracle, if you think about it.

Other times, the assembly takes on a different shape altogether, a natural result of working with imprecise pieces, since language can only approximate the knowing that came before it.

Each Pass Costs Something

There's an old party game called Telephone. You whisper a phrase into someone's ear, they whisper it to the next person, and so on down the line. By the end, what comes out the other side bears almost no resemblance to what went in. Everyone thinks they passed it along faithfully. And they did, they passed along what they received. But each tiny distortion compounded.

That's what happens with ideas. Every time a piece of knowing gets converted into language, passed through a mind, and reconverted back into knowing, the image shifts a little. Sometimes a lot. Generations of this — across books, conversations, institutions, cultures — and you can end up with entire communities of people who are certain they're talking about the same thing, and aren't.

Are We Looking at the Same Picture?

Which brings us to the part that's actually useful.

A remarkable number of arguments, the kind that feel stuck, the kind that generate more heat than light, are not really arguments about principles at all. They're arguments about images. Two people are each holding a fully assembled puzzle in their mind, each convinced the other is looking at the same picture, and neither one has thought to hold them up and compare.

The fix isn't always more debate. Sometimes it's a simpler question: Are we looking at the same image?

Do we mean the same thing by this word? Do we mean the same thing by that one? When you say justice, what do you see? When I say freedom, what's the image in my mind compared to yours?

This isn't being pedantic. It's being precise. And it's often the most respectful thing you can do for a conversation, because it says: I take this seriously enough to make sure we're actually in contact with each other before we push further.

When both parties are genuinely looking at the same image, when the terms carry the same weight and texture for everyone in the room, you can finally talk about the thing itself. The principles. The actual substance. Not just the words floating around it.

Shared Meaning Isn't the Same as Agreement

Shared meaning is not the same as agreement. Two people can look at the exact same image and come to different conclusions about it. That's a real disagreement, and it deserves the real effort of working through it.

But a surprising number of what look like real disagreements dissolve on their own once the images are aligned. Once people realize they were using the same word to point at different things, or different words to point at the same thing. The argument wasn't about the principle. It was about the pieces.

That's worth checking first. Almost always worth checking first.

Lay the Pieces on the Table

So the next time a conversation starts to generate more friction than progress, try stepping back. Not to concede anything. Just to ask: Is the image I have in my mind the same one you have in yours? Let's find out.

Pull out the pieces. Lay them on the table. See what picture they make for each of you.

That's not retreating from the conversation. That's making contact with it.

---

To learn more about Living Systems Leadership, schedule a free call today.