What Is Context? ⚠️

[James123]

7 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

The eggplant?

Seriously though, maybe everything is nothing, but how does such a claim assist us here?

Context is something, that it has a name shows that, otherwise we'd be using the word 'nothing' for every thing.

Lasagna is lasagna  

It is not nothing. It is genuinely, genuinely Not Knowing.

[UnbornTao]

35 minutes ago, James123 said:

It is not nothing. It is genuinely, genuinely Not Knowing.

You sound like a proselytizer.  Our focus here is Context.

[James123]

47 minutes ago, James123 said:

Seriously though, maybe everything is nothing, but how does such a claim assist us here?

I just answered your question above 😊 

48 minutes ago, James123 said:

Context is something, that it has a name shows that, otherwise we'd be using the word 'nothing' for every thing.

When one realizes that everything is Divine, all distinctions dissolve. No more contexts, no more lasagna, no separations at all. There is only the Divine itself, and its reflection: love.

This understanding weaves all words and context (including meaning of context) together, connects our conversations, and even binds the taste of lasagna into the same sacred thread.

[UnbornTao]

17 minutes ago, James123 said:

I just answered your question above 😊 

When one realizes that everything is Divine, all distinctions dissolve. No more contexts, no more lasagna, no separations at all. There is only the Divine itself, and its reflection: love.

This understanding weaves all words and context (including meaning of context) together, connects our conversations, and even binds the taste of lasagna into the same sacred thread.

That sounds wonderful.

Now, did you have an insight into context?

I understand the tendency to absolutize everything; but a 'thing' comes to exist as a particular experience or perception. 'Context' is the one being discussed here. Or: a dish is a dish, not another thing it is not (at least in this conversation.)

[James123]

8 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

I understand the tendency to absolutize everything; but a 'thing' comes to exist as a particular experience or perception. 'Context' is the one being discussed here. Or: a dish is a dish, not another thing it is not (at least in this conversation.)

If we dismiss the absolute, then the implications or meaning of “context” become fluid. Shifting endlessly with perception and understanding, both of which belong to the mind. What I’m aiming to address here is not the variable meanings that context can take, but rather what “context” is in its absolute sense, independent of interpretation.

[UnbornTao]

15 hours ago, James123 said:

If we dismiss the absolute, then the implications or meaning of “context” become fluid. Shifting endlessly with perception and understanding, both of which belong to the mind. What I’m aiming to address here is not the variable meanings that context can take, but rather what “context” is in its absolute sense, independent of interpretation.

That's the rub - isn't it true that context is relative? After all, it's a particular form. Is that what you mean by 'in its absolute sense'? That context is absolute?

If we bring in interpretation, the matter becomes even more diffuse. Is context a function of interpretation? Is context itself interpreted, or is it perhaps what gives rise to particular sets of interpretations?

"Self" is a context - it governs our experience, interpretations, meaning-making, and so on. What is that (referring to the context, not the self)? 

Sorry, I digress.

Edited 2 hours ago by UnbornTao

[James123]

26 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

That's the rub - isn't it true that context is relative? After all, it's a particular form. Is that what you mean by 'in its absolute sense'?

If we bring in interpretation, the matter becomes even more diffuse. Is context a function of interpretation? Is context itself interpreted, or is it perhaps what gives rise to particular sets of interpretations?

"Self" is a context - it governs our experience, interpretations, meaning-making, and so on. What is that (referring to the context, not the self)? 

Sorry, I digress.

In fact, the body and brain do not create experiences or thoughts. To cling to thought is to cling to the idea that you possess a body and brain. Attachment to thoughts and words, and speaking from that attachment comes from the ego.

However, True speech and action arise naturally from the Self /Being when there is no clinging to the ego or its mental constructs. Thus, speaking without attachment reflects abiding as the Self. The source beyond body, mind, and ego.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

This one is really troubling me. I don't know what it is at all.

I get an impression in my mind it is like the background that defines the foreground. 

Invisible but causal. The tricky part is it doesn't show up as part of the 'thing', but it determines how the 'thing' shows up. No separation between the thing it gives meaning to but co-arises with it. Like a paradox - separate but together.

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Carl-Richard]

16 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This one is really troubling me. I don't know what it is at all.

I get an impression in my mind it is like the background that defines the foreground. 

Invisible but causal. The tricky part is it doesn't show up as part of the 'thing', but it determines how the 'thing' shows up. No separation between the thing it gives meaning to but co-arises with it. Like a paradox - separate but together.

I recently talked to a friend who studies philosophy and he started talking about the famous Liar Paradox: "this sentence is false". I replied saying there is a conflict between the context and the "text", in that we assume that sentences are to be taken as "true" when interpreting them (the context), but when the content of the sentence conflicts with that assumption, an apparent paradox is created.

Then he started talking about Heidegger's concept of "language games" (e.g. "pen!" meaning something different depending on what action it's referring to, or what game or context it's happening within).

Edited 14 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Carl-Richard A literal minefield >.<

How the hell do we manage to communicate anything at all with this turd version of communication 'language'

Some bastard needs to unlock telepathy secret

[Natasha Tori Maru]

 

9 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Then he started talking about Heidegger's concept of "language games" (e.g. "pen!" meaning something different depending on what action it's referring to, or what game or context it's happening within).

So by the above, context is the condition of possibility for a thing to be what it is?

But then, looking at it ontologically - appearing is being - but then this contextual thing only appears within a field? FUCK 

No context - no thing?

WHAT 

[Carl-Richard]

40 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Carl-Richard A literal minefield >.<

Damn it, it was Wittgenstein, not Heidegger. Wrong German-speaking philosopher. Language got me there, heh. Maybe because I'm not fluent in Western philosophy, or German 🫠
 

40 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

How the hell do we manage to communicate anything at all with this turd version of communication 'language'

That's what I think when I think about how Wittgenstein's use of the word "language game" means something quite different to how I use the word 🥵 That's itself a language game (in my use of the word) 🥵🥵

 

40 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Some bastard needs to unlock telepathy secret

😏 👉

Edited 13 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[ExploringReality]

Context is fractal, meaning that any possible interpretation, framework, meaning and context is not just one thing, but an entire field of pure potentiality and being. Context isn't something to be defined but is what allows things to be defined.

It's the outline of everything

Edited 13 hours ago by ExploringReality

[Joshe]

A dynamic, nested possibility space, shaped by constraints and defined by perspective.

Edited 12 hours ago by Joshe

[ExploringReality]

Context are the masks of perspectives, a play of unique experiences of experience

Edited 10 hours ago by ExploringReality

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, ExploringReality said:

Context are the masks of perspectives, a play of unique experiences of experience

Text no sense makey.

[James123]

6 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Carl-Richard 

How the hell do we manage to communicate anything at all with this turd version of communication 'language'

Hugging, crying and loving without a word spoken.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@James123

[Human Mint]

18 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Given your assertion above, I'd say those are foundational questions to clarify what you meant.

Probably, but it's always worth to investigate even more. If I ever have the answer I'll def share them

[UnbornTao]

14 hours ago, James123 said:

In fact, the body and brain do not create experiences or thoughts. To cling to thought is to cling to the idea that you possess a body and brain. Attachment to thoughts and words, and speaking from that attachment comes from the ego.

However, True speech and action arise naturally from the Self /Being when there is no clinging to the ego or its mental constructs. Thus, speaking without attachment reflects abiding as the Self. The source beyond body, mind, and ego.

How does this relate to my questions above? I'm not making the connections. What is your experience of context? What do you "hold" it to be?

Edited 2 hours ago by UnbornTao