What Is Context? ⚠️

[Joshe]

Context: a dynamic, nested possibility space, shaped by constraints and structured by variables and constants. Its objective aspect is fully defined by these conditions, existing prior to perception or interpretation. Its subjective aspect emerges when perspective interacts with this field, constructing interpretations that are partly defined by the same conditions but also shaped by selective framing and meaning-making.

Lol.

Edited August 19 by Joshe

[UnbornTao]

On 8/19/2025 at 3:21 AM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@UnbornTao

So we do not require language, just differentiated experience? This topic is dense so forgive me if I am being dense in response to your quite eloquent reply above.

A lizard on a hot rock.

Sun - stimulus. Rock's warmth = part of the context.

Shadow of a hawk passing - threat context overrides the basking = New context.

In the above, symbols point to the context, and meaning is through relation?

I do suppose it depends on how loosely we define language.. 

We do need or require language if we want to be able to enjoy what it allows for - communication included. Language is a particular context. And context itself doesn't seem to necessarily require language - unless it does, for example with arithmetic (math being the language-context.) 

Could you help me clarify what you're attempting to unpack with those examples? 

Without language there's no symbol in the first place. You can obviously act and distinguish stuff without the need for language. And its invention also allows for realms of new distinctions.

Language, as I view it now, is the contextual possibility for a particular thing - like a sound - to represent something that is not that thing - anger, for example (a shout representing anger.)

We can see these aren't simplistic subjects at all! Jesus.

Edited August 20 by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

17 hours ago, Joshe said:

Context: a dynamic, nested possibility space, shaped by constraints and structured by variables and constants. Its objective aspect is fully defined by these conditions, existing prior to perception or interpretation. Its subjective aspect emerges when perspective interacts with this field, constructing interpretations that are partly defined by the same conditions but also shaped by selective framing and meaning-making.

Lol.

Anyway, what objective aspect? Also, prior to perception or interpretation? Sounds interesting. What would be an example of variables and constants?

That definition sounds way too abstract, though.

Was it perhaps inspired by a conversation with 🤖? 

Edited August 19 by UnbornTao

[Joshe]

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Anyway, what objective aspect? Also, prior to perception or interpretation? 

The rocks on mars exist in an objective context before you perceive or interpret them.

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

What would be an example of variables and constants?

Variables and constants are things that comprise the space. Variables change, constants don't. Variables = weather, mood. Constants = gravity, location.

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Was it perhaps inspired by a conversation with 🤖?

I constructed the definition, AI helped me articulate it. 

Trying to wrap it all into a terse definition that satisfies the philosopher isn't easy. I tried to capture the essence in as few words as possible, but it's difficult to do without sounding abstract because each facet is highly complex.

Point-by-point breakdown

• Dynamic
  • Context is always changing and evolving.
  • It’s not fixed; conditions can shift, variables can fluctuate.
• Nested
  • Context comes in layers — local, regional, global, universal.
  • Each context exists within a broader one (e.g., a conversation inside a culture, inside history).
• Possibility space
  • Context defines what can happen, not just what is happening.
  • It sets the range of potential actions, meanings, or outcomes.
• Shaped by constraints
  • Constraints = the limits or rules that narrow down possibilities (like gravity, social norms, logical rules).
  • They structure what’s possible by ruling certain things out.
• Structured by variables and constants
  • Variables = things that can change (weather, mood, circumstances).
  • Constants = things that remain stable (laws of physics, core principles).
  • Together, these give the possibility space its texture.
• Objective aspect
  • Exists independently of anyone perceiving it.
  • Fully defined by constraints, variables, and constants.
  • Example: a rock on Mars is under the Sun’s gravity whether or not anyone is watching.
• Subjective aspect
  • Emerges when perception or perspective comes into play.
  • Still tethered to the objective conditions (can’t make up reality), but:
    • Selects what to notice.
    • Frames what it means.
    • Interprets it in a way that can add or distort meaning.
  • Example: two people see the same rock in the desert — one sees beauty, the other sees useless dust.

Edited August 19 by Joshe

[Joshe]

[UnbornTao]

Nooo, not AI. It completely defeats the point of contemplation. 

Edited August 19 by UnbornTao

[Joshe]

12 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Nooo, not AI. It completely defeats the point of contemplation. 

Maybe for you. For me, the point of contemplation is to make progress. Smarter, not harder. That doesn't mean to let the AI steer the ship. 

You're selling me short. AI would never have came up with such a robust definition. I came up with each of the points in less than 20-30 minutes of contemplation, and then used AI to flesh them out. 

Why don't you give a go at providing an all-encompassing definition and let's see what you come up with. If you come up with something and then use AI to flesh it out, I wouldn't knock you for it. But if you went to AI and asked it "what is context", then I would knock that, but that's not what I did. Like I said, AI would never come up with a definition as robust as mine. My shits original bruh. lol

 

Edited August 19 by Joshe

[Joshe]

So, if God came down and gave you the full answer directly, you would say "no thanks, I'd rather come up with it on my own". That's the thing I was talking about in the other thread where contemplation is being done without a purpose, merely for the sake of contemplation because one enjoys it, but I'm sure this plays out like "I'm not just doing fun stuff here, I'm doing serious stuff, developing my inner faculties". Hmmmm. 

If it's truth you seek, do you only appreciate truth if you toil in your mind and find it yourself? Or are you happy to find it anywhere and through anything, with little effort on your part? 

If an AI could lead you to the whole truth of what context is, you would reject that path. That's worth contemplating. 

Edited August 19 by Joshe

[theleelajoker]

1 minute ago, Joshe said:

So, if God came down and gave you the full answer directly, you would say "no thanks, I'd rather come up with it on my own". That's the thing I was talking about in the other thread where contemplation is being done without a purpose, merely for the sake of contemplation because one enjoys it, but I'm sure this plays out like "I'm not just doing fun stuff here, I'm doing serious stuff, developing my inner faculties". Hmmmm. 

If it's truth you seek, do you only appreciate truth if you find it yourself? Or are you happy to find it anywhere and through anything, with no effort on your part? 

If an AI could give you the full truth of what context is, you would reject it. That's worth contemplating. 

 

[theleelajoker]

@UnbornTao

@Joshe

Joke above aside, you both have a point but I just assume that IN THIS CONTEXT LOL you are already aware of this

And I liked the tree example. Gave me something to CONTEMPLATE 

@Schizophonia just pointed out an interesting perspective about resistance re exchange of information in another thread. I wonder right now about the connection, how I can reduce resistance by smartly contextualizing such information. Kind of gives me a guideline:

• Where's the objective stuff we can all agree on?
• Understanding the subjective context of the other
• Understanding his current limits
• .....

More work to do on that...tomorrow  

Edited August 19 by theleelajoker

[Joshe]

25 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

Joke above aside, you both have a point but I just assume that IN THIS CONTEXT LOL you are already aware of this

😂

Quote

And I liked the tree example. Gave me something to CONTEMPLATE 

Thanks. Glad someone got something out of it. lol 

Edited August 19 by Joshe

[ExploringReality]

6 hours ago, Joshe said:

So, if God came down and gave you the full answer directly, you would say "no thanks, I'd rather come up with it on my own". That's the thing I was talking about in the other thread where contemplation is being done without a purpose, merely for the sake of contemplation because one enjoys it, but I'm sure this plays out like "I'm not just doing fun stuff here, I'm doing serious stuff, developing my inner faculties". Hmmmm. 

If it's truth you seek, do you only appreciate truth if you toil in your mind and find it yourself? Or are you happy to find it anywhere and through anything, with little effort on your part? 

If an AI could lead you to the whole truth of what context is, you would reject that path. That's worth contemplating. 

I have nothing against AI. I see it as a supplement and a tool to further ones curiosity and contemplations, but I am very careful as to not think that AI can just hand me an existential insight. You still have to go through the formula in your own mind because there's no shortcut in this work. Whether you reach the finish line with AI is irrelevant to having a direct consciousness of Truth. 

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying I'm just simply adding and dovetailing with it my perspective. 

[ExploringReality]

@UnbornTao 

Im willing to propose that language is not needed for communication.

What if language is actually further away from actual communication. What if language is an indirect subset of actual communication. If I show you a nectarine, obviously we both hear and say the word "nectarine" and we'll probably both have ideas and past presumptions about nectarines, how it tastes to us and if we're in the mood or hungry to eat it and what it means to us. But once you take it from my hand without speaking, and you taste it with me, now there is a shared experience that is closer to raw reality not using words or symbols. Handing you the nectarine and tasting it conveys the full sensory reality. The texture, taste and juiciness. This bypasses symbols entirely. It captures something that words can never.

Edited August 20 by ExploringReality

[Natasha Tori Maru]

7 hours ago, theleelajoker said:

@Schizophonia just pointed out an interesting perspective about resistance re exchange of information in another thread. I wonder right now about the connection, how I can reduce resistance by smartly contextualizing such information. Kind of gives me a guideline:

• Where's the objective stuff we can all agree on?
• Understanding the subjective context of the other
• Understanding his current limits
• .....

More work to do on that...tomorrow  

Well... if we are all one consciousness - we are talking to ourselves

Sometimes I pretend this when I feel something butting up against my ego.... to reduce humiliation. And I know exactly when I have found some more self - the compulsion to check if there is a reply is two fold !

This way when someone pokes some horrid holes in my logic - hey! it's all g boss... it was my idea and my contemplation anyway! 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@ExploringReality Haha do we need to define strict terms for language?

I have some insane friends who have some CRAZY loose terms for what they consider language.... 

Edited August 20 by Natasha Tori Maru

[ExploringReality]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@ExploringReality Haha do we need to define strict terms for language?

I have some insane friends who have some CRAZY loose terms what what they consider language.... 

What do you mean? Lol

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@ExploringReality

They see anything that transmits meaning, intention, emotion, structure without a word being spoken - as language

Last night the group were talking about how architecture is a type of language. And it somehow evolved to BEING being a language - 'Reality IS the message'

I ended up falling asleep with the chat open >.>

 

[Schizophonia]

15 hours ago, theleelajoker said:

 

@Schizophonia just pointed out an interesting perspective about resistance re exchange of information in another thread. I wonder right now about the connection, how I can reduce resistance by smartly contextualizing such information. Kind of gives me a guideline:

• Where's the objective stuff we can all agree on?
• Understanding the subjective context of the other
• Understanding his current limits
• .....

More work to do on that...tomorrow  

More simple, as my mentor would say be honest and humorous about my character.

For exemple about me i admit that :

-I'm quite lazy

-I'm cheeky, I have no respect for authority in general, nor many moral considerations (I don't give a damn about killing an animal to eat it, I never give to charities, I want to close the borders so that fewer migrants enter, I'm not even interested in politics anymore...)

-I am bawdy, I lack modesty even when asked to do so.

-I think while I speak so I very often change my mind or simply my etymology.

-Maybe I simp too much sometimes, get too attached to girls because I have little experience; I don't think I'm the worst at all but you can see me like that maybe I don't know.

Etcetc.

If I accept my negative polarities then it's over, there is nothing left to destroy and therefore to humiliate.

I tell myself that if someone really has a problem, at worst, they can ask me for my address in a PM to explain themselves, which of course will never happen, or a mod/Leo can ban me.
But actually, curiously, since I've been applying this ethic, I haven't received any warning points.

[ExploringReality]

You guys!!!! I'm still hiking through this puzzle of inquiry into the nature of context. Guess what I found down here? 

I found infinity!!!! Look! What is Context? Context is not a thing, it's not some ultimate backdrop to everything. Context is the fabric of existence itself. It's not static, context isn't found in reality. Context is an infinite eyeball of every possible infinite perspective happening right now! There is no overarching backdrop to existence. Every point in consciousness already contains every other point as potential context.

This puts language and communication in their place because they're only one slice of this intelligent relational field of potential context.

 

 

Edited August 21 by ExploringReality

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Leo onto it for you

https://www.actualized.org/insights/recontextualizing-reality