In contrast to understanding, it is somewhat more difficult to talk about a misunderstanding(incomprehension)of rusks. And, at the same time, it is somewhat simpler with given the certainty provided in the previous article. Such simplicity is possible despite the fact that understanding and misunderstanding are contradictory sides of some whole, in other words, there is either understanding or misunderstanding. This assumption of their mutually exclusive inconsistency seems to have some basis. But it is precisely in the whole of which they are sides that it becomes possible to understand the misunderstanding, since through this whole they have a connection.
So, let’s say, rusks. An indication of them as something unchanging, given without any further determinations (qualities: color, density, etc.), an indication without emphasizing the measure within which they can still be called rusks — such an empty indication may well be attributed to a misunderstanding of rusks.
Further, the allocation of one “main” essence of rusks (to be a food product, to be some kind of object, etc.), or complete confidence that such an essence can be only one and just such — and here there is a misunderstanding of rusks.
As a result of such a “clear approach”, the opportunity to ascribe to rusks at least some aesthetics is lost — and in this case, rusks cannot be understood.
The division of rusks into only immediate (by color, by material, etc.), and into their essence (for nutrition, for other purposes), the lack of connection of these sides of the rusks, their consideration only separately — in this division there is a section between understanding and misunderstanding of rusks.
There are still many opportunities not to understand rusks, but on the other side of misunderstanding there are excellent recipes for dishes for every day from rusks: they can be soaked in eggs and thrown into a pan, or soaked in milk.
