I think I took more from Gadamer than I realized. I think I may have introjected that understanding into my reading of Buber, too, though I am not sure how much.
*
Some distinctions:
1) an empathetic, reconstructive understanding of the subjectivity (that is the way of seeing) of fellow-subjects
2) a sympathetic, participatory understanding of shared subjectivity (a seeing-with)
3) an objective, psychological understanding of a behaving, communicating fellow-person
4) an objective, participatory understanding of one’s interactions with and reactions to another discretely distanced behaving, communicating fellow-person.
1a) – 4a) the mere awareness and acknowledgment of each of these distinct ways of knowing, apart from their practical application
1b) – 4b) the practical application of this knowledge
*
Knowing a dynamic from the outside and knowing how to participate in a dynamic from the inside are entirely different matters.
I have some questions.
1. Is distinction (as you define it here for your purpose: Knowing and acknowledging.) Outside the practical application enough?
(my thought process)
It seems to me to neglect comprehension which I would say is more the sort of deepening understanding which bridges the gap between knowing and applying by functioning as a vehicle for general awareness to be fluidly transformed into application.
2. Are you implying there is no entire synthesis between external and internal knowing?
No unification of those two into a single comprehensive knowing?
(My thought process)
I think there is one.