UnbornTao

The game series Monument Valley is a fun way to get a hint of recontextualization.

We're using language, so a single term must suffice. The distinction associated with the term has to point to some experience or notion, however nebulous it may be. As for context, it is specific, yet it is not a thing. Go figure. Again, the analogy of space is apt. What is space? Where is it found? Space is the source of the "where." Oh, I'd add that possibility is open-ended. Anyway, some raw reflections that might not have directly addressed your point, sorry. Hopefully others can contribute to that.

Thanks, I'd say I largely agree with you on the core aspect of context: it's a kind of precondition... But it is a challenging topic. My definition: the possibility for new domains of distinction to arise. That, in itself, is a creative act of consciousness. But you're approaching the matter merely intellectually - that's why it seems pointless. Consider the influence of language in our lives. It's immense. Think of the inventions it enables: communication, art, science, philosophy, religion, "talking" with yourseld. You couldn't even be reflecting on this topic now, questioning the usefulness of the inquiry, without this backdrop! The leaps in consciousness required to create language are now taken for granted. Yet gaining insight into language is earth-shaking. Consciously experiencing its nature transform the way you relate to your overall experience. Self, mind, and value are also contexts - and that's significant. It's like Newton's insight into gravity - what did he personally get out of it? An understanding of a principle that helped shape modern physics. Or a fish glimpsing a reality beyond its watery world. As useless as it may be to us, in the end it's about what's true.

@Keryo Koffa I'm probably not the only one who doesn't get what you're saying. Be as clear as possible, or just dumb it down for us plebs.

Something like that, yes. The mind is also a context.

@Keryo Koffa Well, you put on your socks before your shoes, so give it a try.

Sure, the context isn't found in the objects - it is the "room" where the objects are made sense of. "This is my body, this desire of mine, I was angry and am excited now", and so on. Something like that.

@Keryo Koffa Thank you, but you're being way too abstract and fancy in my view - not that there's anything wrong with that, but it makes it incredibly challenging to understand what you're saying. The topic is already difficult enough on its own. Could you ground it in something more relatable, experiential - maybe use a few examples? As another user already mentioned, the dictionary definition could be a good starting point:

Hmm... sounds familiar

That would involve speculation. We need to have a few enlightenments first before we can truly "answer" those questions.

Consciousness.

@Anton Rogachevski Thanks, the sentiment of mystery is mutual. It shows the theory is headed in a good direction. It is a profound condition. We talked about Zen people and also mentioned Thomas Aquinas and his instance of "divine revelation." Others throughout history have also claimed to directly grasp their own nature, and many of them seemed sincere. This was done directly, "through" consciousness. Even though it is unthinkable and paradoxical, it is a possibility for anyone. If it is not possible, that's sad - and we’re stuck with indirect knowledge about reality. Consider Ramana. He's a rare case of a profound, sudden, "full-blown" enlightenment. There was no inference or guessing on his part, not even an insight, but an awakening. What if consciousness is the source of experience and reality? As a simple observation to start us off, we could put it this way: one is conscious of experience.

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.