UnbornTao

Got it. And what does it mean that it is a context? You said words and context arise and disappear in the mind.

Nice, thank you. Your first paragraph does resonate. About your second one: just be careful not to confuse a belief with an insight. We don't need to believe in anything - especially when our experience tells a different story. It's better to leave it as an open question until one becomes personally conscious of what's actually true. I'm not clear on that yet. For now, it goes something like this: the space, possibility, or condition that determines how a thing - or a set of things- "shows up" for us. I'm also not exactly sure what "showing up" means here. Any given context brings forth sets of assumptions with it, as I currently see it. Among other things, context may give rise to a world of assumptions within a particular subject. It might actually be what allows for a group of inter-related assumptions to exist. What is it to contextualize something? An example of a profound context I've used before: the self determines how your experience is held by you - like the operating system of experience.

Thanks for that. Are you saying that the mind is a context?

I like the analogy. That seems to be going in a real direction. Implicit, yet present throughout any given event, process, or activity - perhaps in how it is interpreted. The recipient and the content. The operating system and the applications. A social setting and the subject of discussion. In a sense, we already recognize context in many situations. Yet there also seems to be a deeper aspect to it. Thanks for the context. Sounds good! "Condition of possibility for a thing to be what it is." The condition of possibility seems synonymous with 'space.' But what would the thing be in this case? Without context, wouldn't the thing simply be whatever it is in itself? Contextualizing it would provide a different way to relate to it. For example, pouring water (let's call this the 'content') onto the floor (the context) is different from pouring water into a vase, a printer, a dam, or a shoe - yet the water remains essentially the same in all those cases, does it not? Just some considerations. Take a squiggle like freytfs. Prior to applying context to it, we could claim it is what it is in and of itself - that thing (freytfs). When the context or possibility of language is added back, that nonsensical drawing can be made sense of as a 'symbol' (implying it is now being recognized as something that is "languaging," even if it doesn't make sense in any particular language). What if I told you the word was Norwegian? That would likely change how you perceive it - maybe you'd want to check its original meaning (I just made it up, by the way.) Bringing up language might be muddying the waters, I think. Where's @Water by the River? WHAT Can we change our context of living life from 'self-inversion' to 'self-expansion'?

Is there any point in being asleep?

Whatever contributes to the discussion - including doubts and questions. What comes to mind whenever you look into 'context'?

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?

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.

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.)

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

The eggplant? Seriously though, maybe everything is nothing, but how does such a claim assist us here? Context is some 'thing', otherwise why not call every thing 'nothing'? Lasagna is lasagna, not "nothing."

I keep coming back to "holding something", the way it is "held." Which suggests space or a kind of openness, in my mind. But we don't want to make the mistake of thinking that our contemplation is easily solved. We aren't necessarily looking for just a definition.

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

Some more context: ?

We could say that. And yet, if you were asked what's in a lasagna, you wouldn't answer with "nothing." Wait, maybe it is nothing. But since context seems to be something, we've got to start with that.

I don't know.

What are context and mind? How are you holding these two?

That doesn't say much, does it?

Don't answer, it's a trap!

But what's context?

I like that.

Do you, in actuality, make a distinction between thinking or hearing about something, and experiencing its reality?

Take a look at the first post.