Understanding as Habituation: Leaps, Embedding, and the Generation of Cognitive Networks

Where does the sense of understanding come from? Why can we claim to "understand" something without questioning its ultimate foundations? This paper advances the core thesis of understanding as habituation, arguing that human's sense of understanding does not stem from grasping the essence of things or perceiving logical necessity, but from the habitual acceptance of specific cognitive leaps. By introducing "leap (A→B)" and "leap ladder (A→B→C→…)" as basic analytical units, the paper reveals that any statement of understanding consists of a series of direct connections that do not rely on syllogistic deductive logic, and their "solidity" is merely an illusion. The occurrence of understanding requires neither an infinite regression to ultimate foundations nor a traversal of all intermediate links, but rather the smooth embedding and operation of a leap ladder as a whole into another cognitive context. The paper further analyzes the dynamic mechanisms of habituation: the basic method is the dialectical cycle of expansion and embedding, and the advanced methods include analogy (re-embedding), schema (multimodal habituation), and operation (stylized solidification). Through two typical cases—the Higgs Mechanism and Cohomology—it demonstrates the habituation path from incomprehension to unimpeded ease. Based on the leap network model, the paper establishes a typology of misunderstanding (leap absence, leap misalignment, ladder fracture) and applies the framework to the analysis of scientific revolutions (paradigm shifts as leap network reconstruction), mathematical understanding (multimodal integration), and daily communication (explanation as leap path construction). Finally, the paper engages in dialogue with foundationalism, coherentism, pragmatism, Wittgensteinian philosophy, and contemporary cognitive science to clarify its theoretical positioning as a "habituation epistemology". The conclusion of this paper is that understanding is not the grasp of ultimate foundations, but the suspension of questioning; the edifice of human thinking is not built on the rock of logic, but floats on a network woven by countless leaps; to understand, in essence, is to walk smoothly and peaceably on this network, to the point of forgetting that there is no solid ground beneath our feet.