UnbornTao

Ha, just after reading your comment, I opened a random page of a book, and the first words I saw were "physical self." Take that, Carl! If we think of context as analogous to space, then a self-context would be the room in which the self exists - including the interpretation of it as the receiver of perceptive input, which I assume you were pointing to in your claim. Context sounds abstract and detached, as if, but it can involve objects and related processes, including the body, perception, etc. Anyway, 'body' and 'self' - up for grabs.

My 🧠:

@Keryo Koffa What is context?

@Sugarcoat Physical self? Maybe. I'd include that sense in the context.

Self itself may be a context.

@Joshe Thank you. Besides, the despair and confusion are to be expected. To me, context is the very possibility that allows new domains of distinctions to arise in the first place. That doesn't necessarily mean the distinctions are made right away, but that they can be made - like how science and particular languages could emerge once Language itself came into being. Possibility is open-ended; before "content", it's a kind of "void," as you said, in the sense that nothing has been actualized yet. But it isn't a thing - there's nothing "there" that constitutes the context. Is the context not what gives "content" its meaning? In other words, context precedes the existence of the content within it. For example, without a value context, where do you find "judgment"? How could symbolism, literature, and art exist without the "space" for them to exist? That's the point. Without the context, they collapse into mere shapes, sounds, and images. The properties of a language or of communication - which exist thanks to Language - can be studied, but that already presupposes the wider background in which they appear. One might even say we are conscious of context, though since it has no form (and yet is specific), it isn't perceived. It is a creative act of consciousness. Yes, and "outer" is a particular distinction within space. Right - though in my previous reply I said "comprise," I was confusing it with "compose." That's corrected now. may edit at some point

Hmm, yeah, that seems to be the case. I wonder what others have to say about this.

To add to that, "judgment is good" and "discernment is better" are judgments themselves. Could the act of identifying these require a quality of discernment? What's the distinction you make between perspective and experience? As I see it (;)), a perspective is a particular experience - a viewpoint, or a way of seeing some aspect of reality. Is discernment a particular form of judgment? After all, a context of value seems to be behind both activities.

Maybe it's not so much a state or experience, but rather a condition.

Where's the Stalin meme when you need it?

I have a problem with that.

@Joshe So - are you saying that space is the context? And by "objective aspect," do you mean that it may be related to or involve objects? If that's what you mean, then I agree. Otherwise, where would it be found? Could an object serve as a context for something else? Or, put differently: is there such a thing as an objective context? I'd say yes, in the conventional sense of 'context,' but not existentially. Conventionally, you can group things together, assign them a categorical label, and call that their context. Space allows for the existence of objects. In your example, you might actually be referring to 'environment' or 'setting' - particular forms of space. These don't seem to be physical in themselves. Space isn't the distance between objects - we could say that distance is a function or parameter of space. So, as you say, describing these as 'features' of space does sound reasonable. I think you might be mistaking the notion of a "collection of content" as forming a context. It's a bit like saying: "putting domains of thought together creates the mind," or 'Language is comprised of symbolism and every language there is." The things don't make up - or comprise - the context. Without the context in which they're found, the things don't exist. I see - that seems to be the case. Even before it was invented, 'Chinese' was already possible once Language came into being. A particular unknown language might exist even though we know nothing about it. Or a new one could be invented! That's a possibility within the context, arising at the time of its creation. Hmm... could you be equating the context of 'space' with 'context' itself? Sorry, could you briefly clarify again the objective and subjective qualities? It might be so - but is context subjective and/or objective? "The possibility for a domain of distinctions to exist" removes the focus from the elements within that possibility. Dynamic, nested, structure, variables, and constants are distinctions or 'features' that exist once the context is created. You'd be looking at the features or manifestations of context rather than at context itself. So they may be a secondary consideration. I think your last sentence shows that we're fundamentally looking at context differently. I'm not holding it to be a mental construction. 'Mind' is a context! Not sure about the arbitrary part, though. It seems to be a creation of consciousness... whatever that means.

Without language, I can't seem to think or speak of context... Also, I don't get your examples at all, haha. From such a shift, what would we "say" context is? How would we recognize it? You can still perceive and make distinctions, though. For example, prior to language, objects still exist within space. Without space, there are no 'objects.' What is this recognition a function of? Perhaps it's awareness of distinction. You tell me

There's a version by Willie Nelson as well.

Again, it's possible that we don't really know what happiness is - or suffering, for that matter. And the point isn't that desiring something is wrong. Or that pain and suffering are good. It might be that suffering is 'natural' when it comes to a self struggling to survive (not to a human being, though.) Perhaps the goal was never happiness, but survival - and there's nothing wrong with that pursuit either. As a self, experience is divided into good and bad. Notice that "being happy" doesn't usually mean being happy with everything that happens, or regardless of circumstances. Conventionally speaking, being happy tends to signify "achieving what I want and avoiding what I don't want." Freedom comes to mind when considering happiness. Are we free from desiring and aversion? Can we be happy even when our desires are thwarted, or despite failing to avoid something unwanted? Can we allow our experience to be exactly what it is? Are we able to let go of dysfunctional things? How come we aren't always in bliss? Can you be happy now? There might be a relationship between being and happiness.

The claim is that the desire for happiness implies unhappiness. It suggests you don't have it now and therefore must engage in a process to achieve it. This itself is an act of suffering. It turns happiness into a survival goal. You aren't being happy while pursuing the happiness-goal. On the other hand, we do tend to engage in various forms of suffering already, so there's no need to desire suffering. We obviously tend to be averse to it. For example, notice that when you're angry, you do not desire to be angry. That's clear, since we already regard anger as an undesirable emotion, for the most part. The point is that you can't want something you already have or are already experiencing. You may desire its continuation - but that relates to the future. Similarly, you might wish to recreate a memory of past happiness by somehow trying to force it into now. Neither of those is about being happy now. We may well be confusing the successful fulfillment of our self-agenda with real happiness. By the way, I'm not saying it's inaccessible or mysterious. Still, what is happiness?

Philosophy recontextualized as comedy.

@Anton Rogachevski To add to that, we aren't dealing exclusively with absolute matters. For example, stop breathing - and that'll have an effect on your experience. Why? I wanted to ground the consideration. Approaching what is true demands acknowledging what's right in front of us, as well as beyond us. This includes our so-called experience of self, life, and reality. Another example: bring attention to the fact that we often experience various forms of suffering, to varying degrees - even when we "know" that concepts may be behind it. Why is that? What is the source of the communication? What is it that one "has" relative to these matters? It's true that we already do not know, and this condition should be profoundly experienced, as you seemed to advocate above. At the same time, in order to grasp existential subjects such as reality and being, breakthroughs are required. In other words, thinking about the truth is different from directly grasping it. I just wanted to caution against this tendency, so as to avoid complacency. If you've had enlightenments, that's great to hear, too.

Wanting happiness is itself an act rooted in suffering. If you want something, that implies that the object of desire is already separate from you. So, don't want it. Be happy. How? Not sure, but do it anyway. Additionally, getting clear on what being is sounds like a sensible direction to take.

I'm picking 1xB: "It's too complicated to explain." How_Leo_Gura_argues_bingo.png:

Sure, maybe. But can we experience what it's like to be without language? Can we even imagine what life was like for us prior to its invention? It's tricky.

Hey, you're the one who brought up an 'experiencer'! I wanted to know what that was about. It seems like you want to insist this is a simplistic matter, something equivalent to drawing a conclusion or something along those lines. But there might still be things left for us to grasp. And it's possible this impulse to be satisfied with an answer itself stands on a plethora of assumptions. For example, I bet we'd have a hard time actually encountering this "pure experience" business - it might turn out to be conceptually dominated. After all, concepts aren't just thoughts. For example, notice how you actually can't stop thinking. I suggest that isn't a random occurrence. To be clear, I don't expect to arrive at truth through an exchange like this, but perhaps we can stimulate different avenues for inquiry. And recognize that, more often than not, our condition is one of profound "existential ignorance." Actually, perception is quite a solid event or mechanism. You can't get around it. Overlooking the body isn't intelligent. If anything, the body precedes states and conceptual activity. Without a brain or the body, how could what's commonly regarded as "experience" occur? It couldn't. You can observe this when you close your eyes and the visual field disappears (or turns black) - so this isn't just a thought. Some questions.

@Joshe My claim wasn't that assessing and judging are "bad" and to be avoided (value-dependent activies as well) but rather that, without the space for things to be considered good or bad, positive or negative, those activities can't occur. In our experience, notice how we are always at the effect of everything perceived. Everything has an effect on us that allows us to adopt an orientation toward it - either aversion or preference. Think different thoughts and observe how each one usually generates a particular feeling or reaction. Do you feel attracted to what you're experiencing right now, or do you move away from it? When looking at a pencil, the effect that arises differs from seeing a banana. Notice this tendency to assign value. "Value" tells us whether to adopt a positive or negative relationship toward something. Even when a preference isn't clear, there is still an emotional orientation to what you encounter. You do this, for instance, with every emotion you have: you automatically judge it, evaluate it, assign it a certain value, and determine a positive or negative relationship with it.