Joshe

And what is it according to you? It seems that you're pointing at objective things that can permeate the consciousness of multiple agents, and you're intuiting there's potentially something more profound about those objective things than we realize. Is that what you're getting at? If so, it's an interesting idea.

What do you mean? I would say it’s the perception of each conscious agent that feels the wind.

It’s not different. A sense perception is shared in the same way physical space is. Everything gets shared the same way. That includes sights, sounds, time, and physical space.

Different conscious agents coming together to focus their consciousness upon the same thing. Your question seem akin to “how does the sky allow for birds to fly in it”. The answer is it just does - it’s how reality is.

Yes, I don’t take credit for anything that might be good about myself.

I'm open to being wrong, but all things evolve, including the human psyche. I'm not big on spiral dynamics but if humans used to largely be stage red and now they're largely blue/orange, does it not make sense they will continue to move up the spiral? On a long enough timeline, we either self-destruct or transcend. When I consider advanced aliens, it's seems unlikely they haven't transcended this dog eat dog, law of the jungle mentality.

It makes you feel good to hate trans. Most people here don’t get off on shit like that.

And yet the average human character has evolved far beyond what it was 5000 years ago.

The solution is evolution.

You can be successful and keep your values. They can actually set you apart. I have the ability to manipulate the shit out of people but I won’t do it because I couldn’t live with myself if I did. It wouldn’t be worth it in the end. Betraying yourself isn’t an option, even if it means you sacrifice everything.

Tis true - to be happy, you first have to remove unhappiness. But you cannot stop at the removal of unhappiness, lest you bullshit yourself like someone who mixes blueberries in a broccoli and chlorella smoothie, takes a sip and says "Mmmm, delicious". If you're chronically sleep deprived, it doesn't matter how peaceful you are - you will experience the opposite of happiness when you're forced to experience something you don't want to. When you remove all the blockers to happiness, happiness doesn't just usher itself it. Relative peace and calm is easier to access, but I'm not sure I'd call that happiness. Happiness seems like success - it's different for everybody.

I don't think so. This gets back to the "perception" aspect. Meaning is derived from the perception of the context and content. Without the context, the content can't have meaning, but that doesn't mean the context gives or assigns the meaning. Context does largely determine what meanings can be derived, (which is what I was trying to get at with the "objective" quality), but subjective interpretation interacts with the objective aspects to select what meaning actually arises. Context limits meaning and makes specific meanings more likely. It paves the way for meaning. Without context, content can't be interpreted meaningfully. The main aspects are: context, content, and perception. All of these are interdependent. Context = the structured possibility space Content = the distinctions inside it Perception = the interpreter that derives meaning It seems hard to come up with a good definition for context without mentioning the other 2. Keryo brings up a good point about how context changes over time and is influenced by previous meaning making. This seems important to have in the definition. All that said, I'm still failing to see how this inquiry pays off. All I'm doing here is exercising my cognitive abilities.

So you're a Karen?

Yes. Yes, outer space is just the "possibility space" for things like distance between objects to exist. "Distance" would be a variable assigned to "content" within the space. The collections of content do comprise a particular context, because context cannot exist without content. But that does not mean content = context. Context isn't reducible to the things inside it. The possibility space and the things that arise in it are inseparable, which is why my definition includes content. My definition includes the space itself, the content, and the perception aspect. Together, these create "context". I think the definition needs all 3. Yes, this is what I meant by "dynamic". The possibility space can allow for an infinite number of configurations, but once you start to make distinctions by setting variables, constants, and constraints, the space takes on a particular shape, thus forming a context. But the possibility space itself is not sufficient for defining context IMO. When you look at a small tree next to a big tree, the big tree is objectively bigger. The distinction is not subjective. The perception of the distinctions include both the subjective and objective content. I'm not sure though whether to call perception "content" though. The perception part of my definition could use some work. It might even be best left out, I'm not sure, but I feel like it has to somehow fit in. I mentioned dynamic and nested as properties of the possibility space, not the content. "Context: a dynamic, nested possibility space, shaped by constraints and structured by variables and constants." I think the disconnect is coming from my inclusion of content in my definition. I think we agree that context is the precondition for content, but the way I see it, you cannot exclude content from the definition because without content, there’s no distinction, and without distinction, there’s no context - all there is, is the void. Context only has meaning in relation to content. So maybe you could say that the ultimate context has no content, and maybe we could call that the absolute context, but if we define that as context itself, we don't really capture what context is. Context only becomes context when there’s content/distinctions inside it. No content, no context. BTW, I'm no expert on this stuff. Engagement with this thread is my first go at this and I'm forming these ideas somewhat on the fly and from intuition.

Could be. I hope so.

When they say “I became angry because my eyes became really bad”, they mean they saw something really bad and/or were kept in the darkness. And they want to destroy their glasses so they don’t have to see it anymore or because they don’t need them in the darkness. Something really bad might have happened to them and they disassociated. This person sounds like a mentally unwell hostage. They “won’t leave their house” because they can’t. And outside unusable = they aren’t allowed to go outside. This is either a troll or someone in need of serious help. @Leo Gura Not sure how you handle things like this.

I didn't say the rocks on Mars are the context, although they could be if you were analyzing the rock's atomic structure. I said they exist in a context. Specifically, in a nested context. I agree. Outer space would be the "possibility space" in my definition. The rocks on Mars already exist, even though you've never perceived them. If you get in a spaceship and fly to Mars, you will find them. If you go to the forest, you will find the fallen tree. That's what I mean by they exist prior to perception (if you don't zoom all the way out). I didn't say those things were the context. I said they comprise the context. Variables and constants were just a single aspect of my definition. You have to consider my entire definition, which I gave a point-by-point breakdown of. When I listed things like gravity and mood, I didn't mean they are context. I meant they are examples of conditions that give the possibility space structure or could be seen as features of the space. They contribute to the context, but they are not the context itself. Reread my definition. I started off by saying context is a dynamic, nested possibility space. This explicitly framed it as a field. And of course, the "possibilities" here refer to content. So, a field of potential content that is dynamic, nested, structured by variables, constants, and constraints, and has both objective and subjective qualities to it. Of course, if you zoom out far enough, context is just a mental construction with an arbitrary quality to it, but so is everything, so collapsing it like this is useless IMO.

Lol, yes exactly. It's not about either of them being selfish, as it's natural. It's about how Timmy deals with it. He should not expect others to come to his center anytime he wants. He should understand they have a center as well. But the Grandma should have a healthy balance, as should Timmy, because that's the foundation of a healthy relationship, IMO.

Selfishness is the refusal to recognize and engage the legitimacy of another person’s center of value, while insisting that others continually engage yours. Everyone has a center Each of us organizes life around certain values, projects, or identities - what I’ll call our center. For one person it might be knitting. For another, sports. For others, maybe it's political debate, career, or parenting. We don’t just care about these things privately. We want others to notice them, engage them, and validate them. That’s the natural bias: “meet me where I live.” When two people interact, the real negotiation is not over “truth” or “reality,” but over whose center deserves attention right now. This is why a grandma wants you to admire her knitting, or why a sports fan wants you to talk about last night’s game. They don’t just want you to acknowledge the facts - they want you to spend your scarce attention budget on their value system. Conflict emerges from competing value functions. Default bias: Each person assumes their center should be the reference point. When another person doesn’t engage that center, it feels like neglect, dismissal, or disrespect. The clash isn’t over what’s real, but over whose values get airtime. This explains why couples fight over what look like trivial things: the dishes, a hobby, a preference. The triviality masks the real wound: “You didn’t engage my center. You didn’t treat what matters to me as mattering.” You can see this in children. I have a nephew who has come to realize that the world isn't going to be so selfless as to remain in his center - if they even show up, and he's become nihilistic at the age of 12 because of this. That's just one way to cope with this truth. The healthy way is to acknowledge and accept it. If you can do that without bitterness, you gain in strength and sovereignty. But this is no easy thing to do because our response to it is formed unconsciously in childhood. Maybe this post could also be renamed to "The Heart of Neediness".

That is the very idea! Maybe I didn't communicate well.

A lot of folks make a habit of skipping the discernment step (over-reliance on judgement), while others spend too much time there, burning time and energy out of fear of error or perfectionism. We need discernment about how much discernment is needed. Ideally, we can learn to judge accurately via discernment, and then rely on those sound judgements without getting bogged down in trying to discern everything there is, because there's simply not enough time.

So what makes you get up to do the dishes? Maybe you value things being clean, tidy, or done, or maybe you fear your friends will think you’re a slob or you fear the dishes will pile up and bite you in the ass later. For some, it’s good to do the dishes - for others, bad. Even in the most trivial of things, we’re making judgements. What’s regarded as neutral can be and often is recognized in higher consciousness, but it’s almost always glossed over so we can get to the stuff that we think matters. It takes effort to force oneself to look at something they deem unimportant or less worthy of attention, because we all usually have something of our own that we place at the center, and we want others to acknowledge it and engage our center but we don’t want to engage the center of a grandma knitting sweaters. The grandma sees it as valuable, and so engages it. To me, I gloss right over it because I don’t care about knitting, but I do understand the grandma cares about it and it doesn’t go unnoticed. I judge her activity as unworthy of my time in a matter of milliseconds. Grandma knitting sweaters is neutral to me. But something like fishing, hunting, and watching sports - I see those as negative and I judge them as stupid and harmful wastes of time. If the grandma is nice and sweet and wants me to engage her about knitting, I will, because I like nice and sweet (judgement). But if she’s nasty, I will add that on top of my judgement of knitting and soon bounce. A very important thing to know is that judgements often happen in milliseconds because we’re pulling from previous assessments (cached data). I feel people need to be able to see this. You have to understand what 500ms is and how it differs from 1 second or 200ms. You can have Claude build you an artifact with 5 buttons, where each button opens a small popup at different speeds. There is significant difference in 50ms and 500ms, and the button popups can reveal it to you. Actually, I set it up so you can see: https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/d0f033db-aeb2-4e8f-abe5-cd06d240b269 Most people would gloss over this, but understanding the speed of psychic phenomena is crucial for understanding the mind. If you pay attention to this and see what I’m saying, you can start to become aware of just how fast thoughts, judgements, and their implications occur, so that you can then contemplate the larger implications of it. Lastly, when we encounter something we’ve never seen before or never considered, we take time to form a judgement. We might judge the thing as potentially good for us but we don’t have time now to engage it, or we might judge that it is not for us at all, and the next time we encounter it, we quickly access our previous assessment and place our judgement. Some do this quicker than others but everyone does it, because they must. Imagine trying to navigate a bookstore without judgement. You must use judgement to find the books you're interested in, then you use discernment to figure out if you should buy the book. Without judgement, you're like a deer in headlights, not knowing what to do. The main role of judgement is to move forward. Maybe another good contemplation would be the distinction between judgement and discernment.

Good to know. Thanks

Same. 500 codes are server issues. Not the first time this happened.

It’s characteristic of intelligence. Lest you wind up shitting in a colostomy bag.