UnbornTao

Sounds good. Is space not a context for objects, though ('dimension' being a function of space)? You addressed the above question in your second sentence. So "the time-space or space-time dimension" might be missing the mark. You may well be using that figuratively, but is context not unformed? Other than that, the sentence makes sense... Still, you might start calling that "consciousness" instead. If it's infinite it goes beyond being a background.

Try clarifying it some more. You insist on being an adept in the religion of Victimhood. To start with, do you even know what a desire actually is? Naturally, then, you might want to consider that first. What is the activity composed of? What occurs in your experience as 'desire'? Certainly, there are external influences. Triggers can seem powerful at times, but they don't do it for you. The presence of a trigger doesn't mean you have to react according to its demands. In many cases, you can even stop it from being a trigger at all. Who or what controls your experience? Can someone else make you angry, for example? Normally, we'd respond in the affirmative - but look closer. Among other things, and beyond the cultural programming, we tend to overlook the lightning-quick process of interpretation and meaning-making that precedes the reaction. This is entirely made by you, even though it might not have been recognized yet. At the risk of oversimplifying the matter, "not taking things personally" is also an option, at least in this and related examples. And what, after all, is an emotion? Becoming more aware of the genesis of your experience eventually shows that you are the author of it. Still, this depth of understanding isn't necessary to see that you generate desire. You're already in the driver's seat, so it isn't a matter of "taking control," but rather of simply recognizing what's already happening. It's like the driver complaining about where the car is taking them. Recognize that you are the driver of your experience, and notice how that's the case.

I share the sentiment. For this thread: Why context?

Put down the pipe.

I mean, by all means contribute whatever you guys think is useful.

Sounds accurate. What about existential context? Like the mind. The "place" where thoughts occur.

@MuadDib

Yes, that's better put. Having other minds contribute to the discussion helps too, in any case. I'd say that insight is something generated - sudden - and that one has to work for it: by focusing, questioning, staying open, and wondering about something. It can be intellectual in nature, but it isn't limited to that realm. It's a Eureka moment, one that usually demands experiential investigation, depending on the subject.

That's a good one.

Experiencing what context is as itself. So far, what we have are notions about it. These notions themselves aren't the same as context. Recognizing our unconsciousness regarding the matter helps us notice that possibility. For example, we often assume that our experience is merely a reflection of what's "out there," and so we fail to grasp the reality that is created along language. He realized that objects don't fall upward or move sideways! In that story with the apple hitting his head, he consciously experienced a principle of the physical world - he had a sudden, personal encounter with something real. He wasn't just making something up or having a new thought. Now we take it for granted as obvious, but so did others before Newton. We tend to overlook the possibility of personally discovering shit, especially when it is profound.

Can you give it a try at pulling subcontext out? Wouldn't subtext be a subset or type of context? Subtext relates to communication, which is based on language-context. There has to be an environment (space) first before there can be an implicit meaning beneath the surface (the source of this surface may be the context for it.) Context as the possibility for new domains of distinctions to arise - is how I define it. When consciousness creates it, the content within it can come to pass. When thinking of language, the content is usually what comes to mind. Selling molasses by the river.

It isn't just about words or semantics. Then again, there is an experiential insight to be had - that's why we contemplate in the first place, based on that observation. If it were simply a matter of receiving an answer, we could have just Googled it and moved on with life. And yes, topics like these can seem aggravatingly irrelevant when it comes to our self-concerns and our daily lives. Despite that, what is true in the matter? It's a bit like Newton grasping a principle: every idiot knew that objects fell down, so what was overlooked that only a genius like him realized? I suspect that virtually no one truly grasps the nature of context, even though it could be discussed intelligently. Simply concluding something intellectually isn't the goal. And this being a forum thread, its function may be more akin to stimulating conversation and opening a few doors, taking into account that insight can happen for anyone at anytime. The insight occurs as an increase in consciousness.

Not sure. You could say that there's a perceiving and interpreting of objects. Those two sentences of yours directly address several subjects - objects, space, perception, self, context.

@StyxNStone Nice, will try with that one.

Good to hear. On the other hand, it's more like recognizing that one might not actually know what enlightenment is about. That, in turn, gives rise to an even more powerful opening, beyond knowledge and assumptions. Looking good!

That itself is the context being discussed - the space for things like emotions and thoughts to occur. How could one think of those distinctions without a mind context? Depending on what you're talking about, the "mind" didn't exist at some point. We think it was just a reality that evolved over millennia of human development, just as we discovered fire or agriculture. But that might not be the case. I don't understand your first claim. Okay, that's good.

It's best to make sure one's assessment is accurate - it is easy for it to be biased and partial. Again, being precedes state. At that point, it might better be called condition. State comes and goes; consciousness does not, as that would imply it is some thing that is subject to process; at that point, we'd be referring to something relative - possibly, cognition or awareness. What would be the point if the truth changed with state X or Y? Even the qualifier of "highest truth" is a claim belonging or relating to the relative. A form is relative. That limitation is what allows it to be a form in the first place. It doesn't mean it is separate from the absolute, though. Being is the same whether applied to the experience of a rabbit or to apes like us humans. And consciousness too! Like I said, it seems to me you're talking about a process, perhaps that of perceptive faculties, or experience, as you said. As for the absolute, it is absolute - better left as a possibility to grasp. Still, it is not what is though about it, or the result of combining relative things. Not separate - we're making a distinction. You don't put your socks on before your shoes. Distinction itself is non-conceptual, although distinctions of that kind can be made. The mere awareness of the existence of something is that distinction. And awareness is a limited form of consciousness. As said, it is thanks to the "absence of another" that you can be alone. In any case, that is still referring to the distinction between self and not-self, which is relative. Psychedelics only shift one's mind state. Phenomenal possibilities within experience shouldn't be conflated with a direct consciousness.

Yeah, this shows where you're coming from and how you're holding the matter.

What?! Nonsense. Desiring is something you do. Feeling like the victim of your own actions is disempowering and untrue. It isn't just a part of you - it is you! Your entire self-identity. Don't turn it into a war between two aspects of yourself. The self will be the winner either way.

It's late at night, and I understood none of that.

Oh yeah, I agree.

That's the panacea, and the answer to all questions.

Maybe, yes... An experience like tripping over a rock, or feeling pain, doesn't seem to be context in and of itself. Another claim could be that context determines or influences everything - although that's still a bit vague and could be clarified further. What an object is is not the same as it being a context. I'd rather not speculate too much, but we could imagine a Neanderthal, even without "mind" and "language", having a simple experience or perception. Regarding your second question, I don't think so. You seem to be treating context as something interpreted, at least in that question. There might be something like raw emotion itself, for example, but without the context of mind, there's no conception of a possible location for emotions to occur.

I don't know about that. The mind was invented as a distinction by the ancient Greeks - as the "place" where thinking and similar activities occur. Othwerwise where would it be found?

Listening to this now: Like to have instrumental music on the background while reading, working, etc.