"I cannot understand a thing," then what is metaphysical discussion oriented around?

[rva_jeremy]

The serious truth seeker is engaged in a constant journey of synthesizing logic and intuition.

It kind of feels like intuition is all there is. It is starting to feel like logic is just a subset of intuition. Like intuition is the mainframe, and logic is the little illusory programs that you play with along the way. Like intuition is what you're attached to, the rope that pulls you ever upward, and logic are the playgrounds that you stop at along your path until you outgrow that one, on to the next, more advanced form of logic. But logic will always be abandoned eventually.

I definitely am starting to feel like this, but I suspect this is merely a function of balancing against a great deal of intellectual imbalance on my part.

In my opinion--and this is just my opinion--logic, reason, rationality, etc. are just heuristics for evaluating information within a particular context.  What the spiritual demands is a fluidity of context in which these heuristics operate, a fluidity that can only come from understanding the deeper self employing the heuristic.  In my life I find this often feels like a kind of comfort with or acceptance of paradox, ambiguity, and lack of resolution.  

I find when I stress the logical, it is largely about satisfying myself with the comfort of resolution, where every element has a clear explanation that reinforces every other element.  It is not about finding out what is "true" nearly as much as achieving a conclusion that is sufficiently true to placate me.  I find much discourse that describes itself as rational operates this way, where the goal is achieving certainty within the material context instead of actually following all the threads of logic (since each one of these threads  followed long enough can lead to conclusions that contradict the others).

I concur with the other posters here who have described words as pointers, but I think there's a larger point to be made: you have to do your homework in order to make the best use of class time.  One has to do the work of finding the things within being pointed at.  Otherwise, discussing the Law of One will be a mostly intellectual exercise of debate and definition, building a complex metaphysical model that allows for a shallow sense of resolution while not exploring any of the substance and rich meaning below the surface.  

I agree wholeheartedly with you that there's not much point endlessly discussing the ineffable, the intangible, the paradoxical that is at the center of our common search--except if you augment that discussion with your own inner work.    Discussions such as this one can never be that substantive experience, but they can call upon your substantive experience and draw your attention to new, novel, radical ways of thinking and feeling it.  

In other words, understanding is not of this density because the kind of resolution that typically attends understanding is largely unreachable.  This is because our lives are not for their own sake, in my opinion, but are means to a greater end.  As means, they do not self-resolve.  We must look for resolution in deeper waters.