"What is Innerstanding?" An interesting question.
Understanding, we all know about, even if we fall short on it sometimes. A great review of its many colours can be found in the Cambridge Dictionary.
What about Overstanding? There is indeed such a word, as defined online:
overstand. Verb. (third-person singular simple present overstands, present participle overstanding, simple past and past participle overstood (rare) to stand or insist too much or too long; overstay. to stand too strictly on the demands or conditions of.
There's another definition in the Urban Dictionary, varying somewhat from the above, and I quote: "The Distinction between Overstanding and Understanding is a matter of context and awareness. To overstand is to comprehend a thing itself AND to have knowledge of why it is the way it is and of its place or role in the grand scheme of things."

This particular definition (in full) is a little challenged in grammatical English but makes a good read, so if you want the whole thing, diamonds and all, click here.

So, is Innerstanding a word? When first contemplating the contents of this post, I didn't think it would be, but it is, and the spiritually minded will be pleased to read Urban Dictionary's definition here.

Given the above, we have three points of consideration. Understanding, to trawl the depths of a person, problem, or situation and subsequently gain  knowledge as to the underlying components of the aforesaid, as opposed to Overstanding when we outstay a welcome on our verbosity, presence or limitations. Or conversely, to perhaps overthink it all somewhat.

On being presented with the question, my thoughts turned instantly to wave forms, the peaks and troughs and wells between. Bearing in mind that reality is a continuously shifting sandscape, and that each moment offers a different context to the last, we are nevertheless given to understand - to reach the depths of the matter and form a view from there. To overstand - to see it from above, and be either pious or over-reaching in resultant appraisal. To innerstand - well, the definition given in the link above is very comprehensive. Innerstanding is where the whole picture creates the vista, and it would be a sorry oversight not to quote from the definition given; "absolute, heart-centred knowledge from the core inner being (Source). This word truly requires no description, as it is the zero point to knowledge and being. The knowing that all is perfect and happens for a reason (cause & effect) to move one towards learning and expansion."

Zero point? My kind of language, describing the field where wave forms are unnecessary, the source of all energy, the well of infinite potential. The zero point field is well known to science, but difficult territory for mathematicians to tread (read why in Wikipedia), its elusive quality and breadth of implication making it a ready target for Woo Hunters (dressed in virtual khakis and posing in combat gear next to their latest Renormalised infinity) who'd be loading their weapons with arguments against Innerstanding, even with an Understanding of what the word is trying to say, for they would be Overstanding on their boxes of constants and constraints in determination to be Above All That which is Woo.

On questing for self-discovery, Innerstanding would surely stand us in good stead, were we to have more of it, methinks, and to reach that point wherein the definition lies would be to appreciate the scale of our part in the play, to see beyond ourselves to where all may be illuminated, if only for a moment. For it has to be said that if we understand, we are doing well, and if we overstand, we are dwelling too long, while our Innerstanding may be short-lived but valuable, a hefty contribution to our vision of What Is, and our collective creation of that which may, fate willing in a fair wind, come to pass.

The quantum trail inevitably leads to new information from unexpected sources, and tonight's search for links regarding time waves (Advanced and Retarded) fetched up a paper of considerable interest. Antonella Vannini is a PhD student in Rome who's obviously thinking outside the box about Time.
In his paper
http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Antonella.pdf 
you'll find reference to Luigi Fantappie, whose work on quantum mechanics and Special Relativity in 1941 led to his coining of the term Syntropy, the retrocausal symmetry of Entropy, in which events are propagated in the future prior to reaching the present. This is as opposed to the entropic tendency for reality to appear as if all things lead inevitably to an irreversible state of chaos (as when a glass smashes on the floor, and cannot regenerate itself back to the entire state it once possessed).

A state of entropy is determined (by most scientists at the time of writing) to be absolute in the evolution of the Universe, which is postulated to become, eventually, a discordant soup of sludgy brown material without any particular form. The article behind the image above says otherwise.

Vannini refers (in his fascinating essay) to the EPR Paradox (the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox you can find described in this link), relating to quantum entanglement and the apparent breach of speed-of-light limits set out in the Terms of General Relativity. Its resolution is achieved by application of the d'Alambert operator, which allows for both Advanced and Retarded wave forms to take part in the entangled process and thereby, per se, the creation of reality.

When the d'Alambert operator is applied to Schoedinger's wave equation (which applies time ((to collapse of the wave function)) in the classical forward-arrow format), the EPR paradox ceases to take mathematical effect, because the speed-of-light problem, if Time intersects the respondent mechanism from past and future points simultaneously, ceases to exist. All states of superposition are allowed at all times, and no 'hidden variables' (as in Bell's Theorem) need apply. No problem.

What we're seeing here, if you see these things as I do, is a cast-iron case for a retrocausal Universe, and the store we set in the idea of 'creating our own reality' is hinged entirely on the concept of causal/retrocausal entanglement. If all states allowable within any given parameter (situation) are superpositioned (i.e. open to all options being available), the Multiverse must also play its part in supplying the multitude of options into which Reality (the wave form) at any given moment may fall (collapse).

The collapse of the wave function (referred to in both the above links, so no need for another one here but you can have Wiki's anyway) is said to occur through the medium of observation, but this assumption is itself going to fall under a sticky wicket when you consider, across Multiversal perambulation, the sheer volume of Observers at work in the equation.

Now, we know from experience that absolutely nothing ever happens exactly as we imagine it will. We also know that our focus has a bearing on outcome - that positive and negative considerations on any event yet to materialise (and within the context of this discussion, on past events also) have some impact on the actuality of that event when it finally finds its way into the material timeline, Entropy and Syntropy notwithstanding. We fear the worst, likely we'll get something close. We hope for the best, and while we can be disappointed, we probably escaped the worst-case scenario. The best is often saved for last, when we expected no such thing. Leading the way, the way we feel as if blinded by the light at the end of the tunnel, is our old friend Synchronicity, who's probably related to Syntropy.

Without claiming a Theory of Everything in the making here, I'd go so far as to suggest that we are closer to defining how our reality is constructed than perhaps we've ever been in the history of (this particular) civilisation. We didn't expect half of what we got in the outcomes we've been delivered so far, but we might see some patterns emerging, and could be making sense of suggestions that point to the hand we have in our own versions of What Happens Next. There are people like me who prefer not to grab the tiller, and would rather leave outcomes to those (residing most likely in other dimensions) who know more about what constitutes 'Highest Greatest Good'. There are others who swear by the Law of Attraction, and others (probably not reading my Blogs) who think this is all a load of Woo.

UPDATE 2020 - Come and join the Group for Live Videos on Mondays, and more discussion with others who think about this kind of thing...

Whether or if the glass is half-full, the balance of symmetry allows it also to be half-empty; whichever way you look at it, there are more forces at work than ourselves in making good the evolution of the Universe. Maybe we should be asking ourselves what to fill the glass with by now. We are quantum, being small enough, and we have therefore the same capabilities as all those quantum particles up there in Syntropy. Let's fill our boots back in the Garden, where we were before we knew we knew Too Much of Not Enough.
​
Bring on the Spice Girls.....  or just spend a few minutes in suspended disbelief....