What Is Context? ⚠️

[Eskilon]

A better question might be, what is NOT context?

[UnbornTao]

14 hours ago, Eskilon said:

A better question might be, what is NOT context?

An object does not seem to be a context in and of itself...

The implication being that something physical or objective isn't what context is, or where it is located - as if.

Edited Friday at 06:15 AM by UnbornTao

[Eskilon]

1 minute ago, UnbornTao said:

An object does not seem to be a context in and of itself...

If there's an object there's an observer. An object can't exist in a vacuum.

And If there is an observer, there's context.

Something along these lines

[ExploringReality]

4 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

But what if mind is a context too?

Mind is Infinity. Infinity is Mind 

[ExploringReality]

15 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

An object does not seem to be a context in and of itself...

The implication being that something physical or objective isn't what context is, or where it is found.

But I might look into it some more.

These are strong metaphysical assumptions. First, what is an object literally? Pick any object around you. And notice what's actually there. Try to put your awareness on it like putting a tree on fire.

Are you implying that there is real reality we are only interpreting through the lens and filters of context, and that independent of this way of seeing is the thing in it of itself? Reality without context.

 

[ExploringReality]

2 hours ago, Eskilon said:

A better question might be, what is NOT context?

The Absolute 

[UnbornTao]

6 hours ago, ExploringReality said:

Mind is Infinity. Infinity is Mind 

I don't know about that.

The mind was invented as a distinction by the ancient Greeks - as the "place" where thinking and similar activities occur.

Othwerwise where would it be found?

[UnbornTao]

6 hours ago, ExploringReality said:

These are strong metaphysical assumptions. First, what is an object literally? Pick any object around you. And notice what's actually there. Try to put your awareness on it like putting a tree on fire.

Are you implying that there is real reality we are only interpreting through the lens and filters of context, and that independent of this way of seeing is the thing in it of itself? Reality without context.

 

Maybe, yes...

An experience like tripping over a rock, or feeling pain, doesn't seem to be context in and of itself. Another claim could be that context determines or influences everything - although that's still a bit vague and could be clarified further. What an object is is not the same as it being a context. I'd rather not speculate too much, but we could imagine a Neanderthal, even without "mind" and "language", having a simple experience or perception.

Regarding your second question, I don't think so. You seem to be treating context as something interpreted, at least in that question. There might be something like raw emotion itself, for example, but without the context of mind, there's no conception of a possible location for emotions to occur.

Edited Thursday at 10:24 PM by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

18 hours ago, ExploringReality said:

The Absolute 

That's the panacea, and the answer to all questions. 

Edited Friday at 01:03 PM by UnbornTao

[ExploringReality]

30 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

I don't know about that.

The mind was invented as a distinction by the ancient Greeks - as the "place" where thinking and similar activities occur.

Othwerwise where would it be found?

All context is imaginary and being imagined right now. Mind in the way I use it can only be grasped after you trip so hard you realize everything is mental. Inside and outside, emotions, thoughts and external reality are part of the same one Mind

[ExploringReality]

26 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Maybe, yes...

An experience like tripping over a rock, or feeling pain, doesn't seem to be context in and of itself. Another claim could be that context determines or influences everything - although that's still a bit vague and could be clarified further. What an object is is not the same as it being a context. I'd rather not speculate too much, but we could imagine a Neanderthal, even without "mind" and "language", having a simple experience or perception.

Regarding your second question, I don't think so. You seem to be treating context as something interpreted, at least in that question. There might be something like raw emotion itself, for example, but without the context of mind, there's no conception of a possible location for emotions to occur.

An object is the context of it being that object. Context is the distinction of context. Emotions are sensations in the mind. The mind is not separate from the body. The body is something occuring in the Mind.

I am open to the possibility of being directly conscious of the true nature of Context Beyond interpretation.

[UnbornTao]

31 minutes ago, ExploringReality said:

All context is imaginary and being imagined right now. Mind in the way I use it can only be grasped after you trip so hard you realize everything is mental. Inside and outside, emotions, thoughts and external reality are part of the same one Mind

That itself is the context being discussed - the space for things like emotions and thoughts to occur. How could one think of those distinctions without a mind context?

Depending on what you're talking about, the "mind" didn't exist at some point. We think it was just a reality that evolved over millennia of human development, just as we discovered fire or agriculture. But that might not be the case. 

28 minutes ago, ExploringReality said:

An object is the context of it being that object. Context is the distinction of context. Emotions are sensations in the mind. The mind is not separate from the body. The body is something occuring in the Mind.

I am open to the possibility of being directly conscious of the true nature of Context Beyond interpretation.

I don't understand your first claim.

Okay, that's good. 

[ExploringReality]

23 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

I don't understand your first claim.

Go look at an Escher drawing 😂 

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Eskilon said:

A better question might be, what is NOT context?

Things.

 

9 hours ago, Eskilon said:

If there's an object there's an observer. An object can't exist in a vacuum.

And If there is an observer, there's context.

Something along these lines

Things depend on context. Things exist in the context of everything.

 

The way I feel about this discussion is: you can spend a lot time drawing semantic connections between words just for the sake of doing that (or you can do it really quick and get on with your life), or you can simply use words in a larger context of solving or understanding a larger problem, and you will build your understanding of words that way while actually doing something productive with your life.

The odds are if you take an average well-read person or intellectually engaged person and you ask them what context is, they will be able to come with everything you guys have come up with and more, and likely also in a way that is more structured, concise, streamlined and insightful. Because learning what words mean requires actually using them in context. And once you have learned a bunch of words, constantly asking "but what does it mean??" eventually just becomes an exercise in trying to force an understanding that doesn't exist.

Edited Friday at 01:24 AM by Carl-Richard

[Eskilon]

25 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Logic, concepts and language should be immediately clear to you, things should connect instantly like electricity. If it doesn't, you might be just be masochistically enjoying yourself spinning your wheels in the dirt.

False. At some point in your life these things were not clear to you. And even if they are clear to you right now, you might be fooling yourself that you truly understand these things.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Eskilon said:

False. At some point in your life these things were not clear to you. And even if they are clear to you right now, you might be fooling yourself that you truly understand these things.

You got me 😭🙈 That's embarassing, you caught it while I was editing my comment 😅 The electricity was a bit too quick there ⚡️ I broke my rule of don't post while fatigued after near-death gym session 🙉

The semantic territory which my brain was hovering around: there is this dangerous idea that we tend to use flow as a heuristic for truth. The trouble is that sophists use it to fool people, and it can be used to fool yourself.

Edited Friday at 03:11 AM by Carl-Richard

[ExploringReality]

@Carl-Richard 

Mental masturbation is a trap we all fall into. But having the will and desire to understand something isn't something I take for granted. its not so much the intellectual knowledge of these philosophical contemplations I'm after, it's the direct hit of what these things are.

It's the difference between looking at your fingers vs thinking and imagining about your fingers.

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, ExploringReality said:

@Carl-Richard 

Mental masturbation is a trap we all fall into. But having the will and desire to understand something isn't something I take for granted. its not so much the intellectual knowledge of these philosophical contemplations I'm after, it's the direct hit of what these things are.

It's the difference between looking at your fingers vs thinking and imagining about your fingers.

There is mental masturbation, and then there is pushing rope.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Are we considering subtext and how it comes into play with this definition?

Context = environment that gives shape 'background that frames the foreground'

Subtext = the hidden or implied meaning beneath the surface

Maybe pulling subtext out in a defined way will refine where this is going. It seems to me to be present most of the time, but it is not always relevant.

Then again, maybe this is going to muddy the water (not that it could get any worse, this thread is like walking through molasses)

 

[UnbornTao]

On 8/28/2025 at 4:57 PM, Eskilon said:

If there's an object there's an observer. An object can't exist in a vacuum.

And If there is an observer, there's context.

Something along these lines

Not sure.

You could say that there's a perceiving and interpreting of objects. 

Those two sentences of yours directly address several subjects - objects, space, perception, self, context. 

Edited Friday at 04:50 PM by UnbornTao