What Is Context? ⚠️

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@James123 We know 

There is the addition you (so to speak) make, to enhance and elevate. To my (so to speak) perception.

So to speak 

[James123]

10 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@James123 We know 

There is the addition you (so to speak) make, to enhance and elevate. To my (so to speak) perception.

So to speak 

I just do my best to help you in order to point out to ego, and Truth.

İf I have any fault, forgive me and all of you.

I love you all ❤️ 

[UnbornTao]

19 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think this is exactly what telepathy is, but also empathy, or generally feeling, being the thing that is being communicated. When I feel what you're feeling, it's not a linguistic interpretation, it's a synchronization, a tapping into our shared being. And if you're sensitive, or your self is very expanded, you can't help but take it all in, because that is what is; it is your experience.

If I were to use some Sheldrakian terminology: when the field of your mind becomes more receptive or it stretches out far enough, more things become part of that field, not necessarily just thoughts, but often experiences, because all experiences fundamentally take place in the same field.

Could that happen without the context of language?

I don't think there would be the possibility or notion of "an experience being communicated." Why would it?

Again, language isn't the symbols or concepts, in my view. And I'd say communication is a subset or function of language.

I'm derailing the topic.

Edited August 16 by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

17 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Language - If I am understanding the paragraph you are referring to?

I think it was the part on defining context through telepathy, or some such. Frankly, I have no idea about either. I'm confused. 🤔 

Quote

I think so... But my evil intention there was to point out where James was operating from ego - injecting his need to teach where it may not have been needed, required - or relevant

Edited August 16 by UnbornTao

[ExploringReality]

What is the true nature of context?

[UnbornTao]

2 hours ago, ExploringReality said:

What is the true nature of context?

[ExploringReality]

5 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

This made me giggle haha.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

The background that shapes the foreground

Where foreground is what we are consciously attending to. And background are the conditions that make the foreground possible to appear as it does. Culture, memory, assumptions, language, prior context, bodily state, time/space.

I think the background is always going to be some sort of network of relationships that inject meaning into the foreground. And without the background, the foreground would be unrecognized noise. Content and field.

This is holographic, no? Context has context. Foreground is just 'noticed background' - background is just 'unnoticed foreground'

[UnbornTao]

"Ground" (background, foreground) is synonymous with - or points to - space, even if the space of context doesn't appear to be physical or objective. Within that space, the possibility for something to show up is created. The invention of language as a context instantly brought with it the possibility of Spanish, German, allegory, writing, misunderstanding, symbolism, etymology, rhetoric, influence, culture, manipulation, thinking, and so on.

Is context conceptual in nature? 

It may sound abstract, but try to notice context in your daily life, and how it influences your thinking, feeling, and perspective. Your self is a context. It is the "space" where your experience is made sense of. 

Shift into a context of living life from self-expansion. This is a beneficial shift, one that naturally focuses the mind on this topic.

Edited August 17 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

On 16.8.2025 at 9:12 PM, UnbornTao said:

Could that happen without the context of language?

It can happen without the use of symbols. The experience itself is what is communicated, is what information is transferred.

 

On 16.8.2025 at 9:12 PM, UnbornTao said:

I don't think there would be the possibility or notion of "an experience being communicated." Why would it?

Information can be transferred, communicated, and the information can be an experience. For example, an emotional state from a person is transferred as an experience to another person. There are no symbols involved there, simply a transferring of that emotional state. The emotional state can be a symbol, for example anger being "stay away", but when the anger is transferred and felt, what is felt is the thing itself (granted perceptual limitations), not necessarily a symbol for something else.

 

On 16.8.2025 at 9:12 PM, UnbornTao said:

Again, language isn't the symbols or concepts, in my view. And I'd say communication is a subset or function of language.

When a bird chirps and another bird understands and performs the action that the chirp referred to, is that not a case of symbol use? The chirp is a symbol used for suggesting a performed action. If not symbol use, what is language, and how does it precede the transferring of information (communication)?

Edited August 17 by Carl-Richard

[ExploringReality]

@Natasha Tori Maru

That's a sharp insight!

Yes, it's holographic. Basically foreground is a selection of the background. The figure and the field go together. The background is the unlit field that is illuminated by attention and gives rise to meaning relationally.

This is a really sticky philosophical knot. But what is Context??? It leads to an infinite regression. Or in Zen, we call it the Groundless Ground.

@Carl-Richard Yes! context isn't reducible to language, and language is not the root of context. Your example with emotions is good. But! Is anything really being transferred? Think about it. There is this field of Being, yes? Then it's not like my anger enters and transfer directly to you about my anger without symbols, but that there is this field of Being. In that field, what we call you and me are local organizations. My anger and  your feeling of my anger are just the same phenomenon arising in different relational perspectives of that field. 

[UnbornTao]

On 8/17/2025 at 5:20 PM, Carl-Richard said:

It can happen without the use of symbols. The experience itself is what is communicated, is what information is transferred.

That's what I'm claiming can't occur without language! The possibilities of "something being gotten across by another" and "listening to another's internal state" wouldn't exist without such context. "Language" isn't found in the drawings, the concepts, or the sounds being made. 

Quote

Information can be transferred, communicated, and the information can be an experience. For example, an emotional state from a person is transferred as an experience to another person. There are no symbols involved there, simply a transferring of that emotional state. The emotional state can be a symbol, for example anger being "stay away", but when the anger is transferred and felt, what is felt is the thing itself (granted perceptual limitations), not a symbol for something else.

Yes, that's basically what communication is - getting your experience across to another.

The medium used, for example writing or speaking, is a tool aimed at conveying that experience.

As said, there would be no notion of transferring your internal state to another, nor of listening to another's experience as we know it. So how could communication exist in such case? You'd hear the sounds being made by another sentient being, but they would be mere utterances - meaningless vocal vibrations not directed at you as something to grasp, make sense of, or decipher.

It's hard to tell what feeling would be like without language, since language constitutes so much - perhaps even the majority - of our conceptual abilities. In fact, feeling itself may be conceptually based, though that's a different topic. Whether all concept and thought depend on language, I'm not entirely clear.

As for less conventional forms of communication, a Zen-like silent transmission may be possible - or so the stories go. It's hard to know what's being conveyed in the rare cases said to happen. Perhaps 'enlightenment' could be transmitted, as it were, yet 'transmission' is still a form of communication, which is still subject to this context. What we call transmission might actually be an opening in the receiver, which he or she then uses to make a breakthrough themselves. Think of the Buddha and his cousin Ananda - again, extremely rare occurrences.

I also suspect that people sometimes confuse things: for instance, "getting high" in the presence of a master and believing that awakening is being handed to them. But the absolute doesn't play by any rules, so I don't know.

Quote

When a bird chirps and another bird understands and performs the action that the chrip referred to, is that not a case of symbol use? The chirp is a symbol used for suggesting a performed action. If not symbol use, what is language, and how does it precede the transferring of information (communication)?

I haven't researched communication in other animals, but I speculate that some species - like birds - might possess a kind of primal language, if they do in fact communicate with one another.

It's this context that generates 'symbol' and the transferring of information as a option in the first place - the space that allows something, like a chirp, to represent something different from the sound of the chirp itself.

Edited August 18 by UnbornTao

[ExploringReality]

37 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

That's what I'm claiming can't occur without language! The possibilities of "something being gotten across by another" and "listening to another's internal state" wouldn't exist without such context. "Language" isn't found in the drawings, the concepts, or the sounds being made.

Your saying that Real Communication is not possible without the context of language? What is the true nature of Language? Is it possible that language isn't limited to our current understanding of language especially when our understanding of language is within a certain node of what all of language could be? That's a radical possibility. 

I get what you mean which is within this context of language that makes it possible for me to understand and write back, but I would propose that there is something at the root of communication and experience, which is Direct Consciousness of Truth Independent of mediums, language, context or symbols and is not dependent on procces nor other.

Edited August 17 by ExploringReality

[UnbornTao]

On 8/17/2025 at 7:17 PM, ExploringReality said:

Your saying that Real Communication is not possible without the context of language? What is the true nature of Language? Is it possible that language isn't limited to our current understanding of language especially when our understanding of language is within a certain node of what all of language could be? That's a radical possibility. 

I get what you mean which is within this context of language that makes it possible for me to understand and write back, but I would propose that there is something at the root of communication and experience, which is Direct Consciousness of Truth Independent of mediums, language, context or symbols and is not dependent on procces nor other.

How could communication exist without the context of language (the possibility of some "thing" to refer to or represent something else that is not that thing)? The former is a function of the latter. Language deserves its own thread.

Well, I'd leave absolute considerations out of the picture, given that context seems to be relative and language is an invention. Without process, there's no need for those things.

Edited August 18 by UnbornTao

[ExploringReality]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

How could communication exist without the context of language (the possibility of some "thing" to refer to or represent something else that is not that thing)? The former is a function of the latter. Language deserves its own thread.

Well, I'd leave absolute considerations out of the picture, given that context seems to be relative and language is an invention. Without process, there's no need for those things.

Basically you have a semiotic view? Communication is by definition symbol use. That language is a necessary condition for communication.

I'm pointing to a different register. Communication can happen without mediation. Like when a baby cries and I sense it's distress, there's no symbol processing, just an immediate resonance. The communication is not about something, it is something. It's the raw experience itself shared in simultaneity.

If you define communication as symbolic transmission, then yes language is necessary. But if you see communication as shared Being then language is only one modality and not necessary. Think about it. A baby doesn’t come preloaded with mom means X. The baby resonates with tone, touch, vibe and direct nonsymbolic communication. language rides on communication, not the other way around. Direct communication = Being resonating with itself

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Very interesting - the topic of language and how it influences context. In terms of transmission information you guys might like this part of a remote viewing (nonverbal information transmission) interview (top CIA remote viewer). 

Go straight to 39:46 - he speaks about how communication happens without language + it's interpretation:

https://youtu.be/JpLThEF2dTM?si=dGnP1Se42mFD3788

Long and short of it is - interpretation and context is an issue. It both sabotages the result and a second person is needed to remove the potential context the remote viewer brings to the process.

Edited August 17 by Natasha Tori Maru

[UnbornTao]

@ExploringReality @Natasha Tori Maru 

It's easy to confuse language with the symbols, medium, or concepts being used. At the risk of oversimplifying, communication (and everything else that language allows for) is analogous to a painting, while language is the canvas. You can leave the canvas empty, but it must exist in order to be left empty. Leaving it empty might be akin to non-verbal or non-symbolic communication. The canvas is the context.

If something cannot represent something else, it is not language, and no transmission can take place. Not even the notion of getting something across would occur to you. Otherwise, a thing would simply be that particular thing, and it wouldn't signify anything else. A sound is made; a drawing is made - and they exist as themselves. Uttering "chair" would be that sound: chair. Or: silla, chaise, 椅子, Stuhl. Just imagine how those would sound in your mind. It is hard not to operate from language - you still read chair and immediately associated the term with your image of a chair.

This principle applies to all forms of communication. Notice that even if you don't know what those symbols mean, you still know that they signify something, that something is being conveyed - this is the distinction of language being operative.

Not only that - without language, what would be left of what we now call "thinking"? It would be radically different, likely more immediate and objective - like a biological function akin to the body burping. The influence of language isn't limited to symbols; it creates whole worlds.

Helen Keller created the context of language when she learned to associate the touch of water on her hand with the word "water" spelled into her palm by her teacher. This was based on feeling physical sensations.

Intent is conceptual in nature, yet pre-linguistic - it is an impulse based on want and co-arises with action. With this I want to suggest that not all forms of concept are linguistic.

Edited August 19 by UnbornTao

[Adrian colby]

It would seem everything we discuss has the same underlying structure or process and that is that it goes from one indistinct statement to endless fractalisation and iteration in all directions. Subdivisions and holons within holons  

for example ‘concept’. An overall generalisation of a thing but delve deeper into it, you find nuance, variety, the differentiation based on the context the thing is in. prior to that it’s just a statement with no meaning but contains within it an infinity of potential definitions.

the universe itself being one but when it creates an imaginary boundary in order to self reflect, the differentiation or fractalisation of forms becomes how those forms interact or relate to one another in order for each to find definition or existence. In the imagined universe/ocean of consciousness or God head there are always two contrasting aspects. The ocean of consciousness, light and the infinity it emerges from. In the ocean,  a form arises but it is not one thing, it is two ( the thing and the ocean). Like the image of a man. It’s not isolated, it is only the image of a man on a background so there are always two forms and how they relate making each other distinct. Nothing is in absolute isolation other than the ‘no thing’ or one ( infinity). 
 

so in that sense, context is not relationship itself but How a form defines itself relative to another form because it doesn’t have a definition or distinction unless it is defined against something else.

Context is the creative act of weaving distinctions into relationship, like an artistry of meaning, so that forms become coherent within a larger whole. 
 

context within context creates narrative. Just like one word doesn’t say much but it has contained within it many possibilities if it is put into context by the other words before and after it. A sentence can clarify the meaning of a word and many sentences can create a story or deeper meaning. 

 

And as mentioned already, it can be a whole containing an infinity of distinctions and/or a whole (distinction) within a greater whole…. Within a greater whole. 
 

so we’ve got relative infinities in all directions within the ‘form’ universe or ocean of  consciousness /godhead and we have all that contrasting against ‘source’ or ‘infinity’ itself ( a ‘no thing’). It understands itself better as absolute infinity, if it explores snd creates an infinity of stories ( that which it is not) to contrast and define itself against. 
 

every concept, word, context, thing can only ever point towards another thing by referencing another thing. Even language only ever references other words and never points at the thing itself. Or should I say ‘no thing’

all of it stops and collapses when it goes into direct contact with just being. It reminds me of ‘Derrida’s différance’. 

 

when discussing and contemplating all these things it becomes very hard to make distinctions because they all boil down to sounding like they are the same thing so they loose meanings. And collapse into the same indistinct mental mechanism. A split from undifferentiated to differentiated.

Inherent context = reflection

The universe “withs itself” simply by existing in relation. every form reflects against what is not it. This doesn’t need perception; it’s the silent mirror of being.

Apparent context = expression

When a perceiver arises, those relations are noticed, narrated, or symbolised. That’s context used for communication/transmission, expressed as story, pattern, or meaning.

 

 

 

 

[UnbornTao]

 

Edited August 18 by UnbornTao

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@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..