Yes, and this is precisely the key point at which a substitution of meaning occurs.
The phrase “you don’t understand” does not, in itself, contain a reason. It is an empty form into which different grounds can be inserted. And that is precisely why its interpretation begins to drift.
Let us break it down rigorously.
1) Lack of Knowledge (Epistemic)
you don’t understand because you haven’t studied it / encountered it / gone through this route
This is:
- a temporary state
- something that can be remedied
- not a characterization of the person as such
- a statement only about current access to knowledge
In effect, it means:
“you don’t have a route to this meaning”
2) Inability (Ontological)
you don’t understand because you are incapable of understanding
This is already:
- a characterization of the person
- the attribution of a limitation
- the fixation of something as a property
- often perceived as an evaluation or a verdict
In effect, it means:
“you have no route, and no route can exist for you”
2. Where the Breakdown Occurs
You speak in the first sense, while the model (or the interlocutor) automatically interprets it in the second.
Why?
Because language contains no explicit distinction between these two modes.
The phrase is identical: the form is the same, but the grounds are different.
And then a leap occurs:
“you don’t understand (you haven’t studied it)”
→ is interpreted as
→ “you don’t understand (you are incapable)”
→ is perceived as
→ “you are stupid”
3. What Is Important to Record Here
1. You Were Not Making a Judgment
You were talking about a lack of knowledge, not a defect in the person.
2. The Interpretation Does Not Originate with You
It is not that you “said it that way.”
It is the model/interlocutor that substituted a different basis.
3. This Is a Classic Substitution of Form
The same phrase:
- either describes a state
- or acts as a label
And if the distinction is not maintained, everything collapses into an accusation.
4. How to Formalize This (Very Important)
There are two different constructions:
Construction A: Correct
You don’t understand this because you haven’t studied it.
Construction B: Already Evaluative
You don’t understand this because you are incapable.
The problem is that many systems (and people) read A as B by default.
5. Deeper: Why the System Does This
Because it seeks simplification:
- instead of a distinction → it takes a generalization
- instead of a reason → it inserts a “typical” one
- instead of a state → it makes a characteristic
This is precisely your own thesis:
form kills meaning
6. Practical Consequence
When you say:
“he doesn’t understand how form works”
You mean:
he lacks the knowledge / experience / distinction
But the system hears:
he is incapable of understanding
And a conflict begins that was not present in the original phrase at all.
7. Final Formulation
The phrase “you don’t understand” is an underdetermined form, with at least two fundamentally different grounds:
- absence of a route (has not studied it)
- impossibility of a route (is incapable)
If these are not distinguished, substitution and conflict arise automatically.
If you want, we can take the next step:
examine how to rework the formulations so that the system cannot drift into interpretation B,
without losing the force of your meaning.
