Putting Into Context What Cannot Be Put Into Context

- When I am told that I am intelligent, I can point to millions of people who are far more intelligent.
- When I am told that I am street smart, I can point to millions of people who are far more street smart than I am.
- When I am told I am good looking, I can point to millions of people who are better looking.
- When I am told that I am a good person, I can point to millions of people who are far better people.
- When I am told that I am knowledgeable, I can point to millions of people who are far more knowledgeable.
- When I am told that I am kind, I can point to millions of people who are far more kind.
- When I am told that I am nice, I can point to millions of people who are far nicer.
- When I am told that I am successful, I can point to millions of people who are far more successful.
- When I am told that I am a wonderful person, I can point to millions of people who are far more wonderful."
- What do all of the above examples have in common?

Well, they are usually said with sincerity because another person wants to pay you a compliment. Sometimes they are said with the intention to deceive you and take advantage of you for some short-term or long-term goal. Other times they are clearly said with the intention of trying to make you feel good, rather than being truthful. On rare occasions, they are said for the sake of being said without any purpose or motivation behind saying them. Never are they said for no purpose or reason at all.

But what unites all of those examples is that they all lack context. Open-ended compliments or open-ended insults are about as useful or harmful to the other person as is pointing to the sky and declaring it is blue might be seen as useful or harmful to the other person — you just don't know without context.

More importantly, how can such important philosophical questions such as "What am I?" be put into context? That might be one of the reasons why we STILL cannot properly answer this simple question, despite the fact it has been around since the beginning of recorded history (and probably even before then.)

So how can we put such an open question into context to try and determine why it has been asked? Well, I don't believe we can put it into context. And the explanation I give for that is we don't know where to start and where to begin. It is currently not quantifiable. It is not possible to know if this exact experience we are having has ever been experienced in exactly the same way at some time in the past. However, that does not make the source of our existence infinite. It just means we are trying to contemplate something that is beyond our comprehension as humans, even humans with the (supposedly) most advanced technology we have ever been in possession of.

How does one put into context that which cannot be put into context? And if that which can be put into context cannot be put out of context, what was the purpose of me even mentioning context in the first place?

Does context actually matter, or are we under the illusion that it matters?

It's a God thing.....all truth starts with the logic in Scripture.....science admits this.

Somewhat of an illusion does permeate, though.....huh!,

a reply to: Dark Ghost

So, you can point to millions "who are" ........................ input your comment from OP here

You could also point to BILLIONS who are not

Count yourself lucky you have been given a compliment that puts you in the top 10%, in the complementee's eyes and not the bottom 90% "who are not"

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Not only that, but the essence of who you are, what it means to be human, is not yours to own either. None of us invents having sex yet each of us thinks we do. The same delusion is true with the ego. We do not die as long as the human race continues to live. The spirit of who we are exists in every other person on the planet. What we think is unique to ourselves is purely a delusion. Who we are is shared by everyone. So we never die because our ego is not really alive.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Nice one! I love that movie.

Everyone has their own reasons as to why they say good things to you.

It could be a salesperson who is only after your money.
It could be a friend, family member, or a stranger the will feel better about themselves for what they have said to you.
It could be a sincere, honest person who is just speaking the truth about what is on their mind.

Put what they tell you in context to what you think they are trying to achieve by their good words. We all keep files in our heads to understand what others say to us. Sometimes it could be filed in your trash folder but other times it could be filed in your wow folder if it is that dream girl saying these things to you for the first time.

But we can and do put those statements into context. Granted, it's a context formed by our own personal, limited frame of reference that is defined by who and what we know.

You spend your post talking about an absolute frame of reference that is completely beyond everyone's scope of comprehension. Sure. We can intellectually understand that out of all the billions of people in the world, we are bound to be absolutely mediocre in intellect or looks or whatever other quality a compliment paid may ascribe to us, but we can't truly know this to fully comprehend what that means because we can't even mentally comprehend the concept of billions in any real way.

The quantities alone are too vast to be really understood and internalized and then you are asking a person to flesh that quantity out into living, breathing individuals that they can know enough to understand which ones are better in some way than they are to intrinsically "get" that they should not be receiving the compliment paid.

You may be able to rationalize the idea of the context, but you can't truly comprehend it enough to live it and feel it.

So you build the context out of your real frame of reference which consists of a much, much smaller pool of well known individuals whom you encounter in your daily life and have encountered over the course of your years, and among them ... that compliment may be very accurate.

It's because we all live a small pool context in the face of the vast, unknowable ocean we prefer not to see.

Good thread. Actually some people let what people say go to their head and eventually it backfires.

There are some fascinating replies to my opening post.

It is possible I am showing some type of confusion in the appreciation between the overall picture and all the small parts that make up the picture. Still, I thought it would be interesting to put those thoughts out there so that others could share their perspectives.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
On rare occasions, they are said for the sake of being said without any purpose or motivation behind saying them. Never are they said for no purpose or reason at all.

Gotta be one or the other, you don't get both.
True unconditional Love either exists ("on rare occasions"), or it doesn't exist at all (fallacy; everything exists)!
A 'reason' that something might be said might well be Loving, with no agenda.
'Reason' does not necessarily mean 'agenda'; the 'reason/meaning' of a hammer is to drive nails, one can hardly call that it's 'agenda'.
In 'Love', there is no 'self' to serve. Agenda is all about 'self-serving'.

originally posted by: namelesss
Gotta be one or the other, you don't get both.
True unconditional Love either exists ("on rare occasions"), or it doesn't exist at all (fallacy; everything exists)!
A 'reason' that something might be said might well be Loving, with no agenda.
'Reason' does not necessarily mean 'agenda'; the 'reason/meaning' of a hammer is to drive nails, one can hardly call that it's 'agenda'.
In 'Love', there is no 'self' to serve. Agenda is all about 'self-serving'.

Unconditional love of whom? Of only others? Of only the self? Is there a separation between others and the self? If there is NO separation between the two (which it seems is your argument) then any act WE do to others must affect every single entity in existence and any action by any entity in existence must affect all other entities (including themselves and ourselves).

Logically, this does not seem possible. It does not seem Reasonable. The only way it could be possible is if you believe in the existence of an entity or force that is superior to or above us (at least to how we are in our current form) and is in control of every aspect of existence.

I would be happy to entertain such as an idea, but I would need strong evidence, personally, to accept it as factual. At this stage, there is WAY too much to lose by accepting such an argument without strong evidence, whereas there is WAY too much to gain by not accepting such an argument until there is reason to do so.

It doesn't mattter what people say.
Compliments and insults are all the same.
What matters is what you do.
Do unto others as you would have done unto to you.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

Does context actually matter, or are we under the illusion that it matters?

When being chased by a bear you do not need to be the fastest, just not the slowest...hows that for context?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

How would you stop getting the compliment without the context. You immediately receive it. Only within context other scrutinies are involved.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
When being chased by a bear you do not need to be the fastest, just not the slowest...hows that for context?

That made me chuckle.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: namelesss
Gotta be one or the other, you don't get both.
True unconditional Love either exists ("on rare occasions"), or it doesn't exist at all (fallacy; everything exists)!
A 'reason' that something might be said might well be Loving, with no agenda.
'Reason' does not necessarily mean 'agenda'; the 'reason/meaning' of a hammer is to drive nails, one can hardly call that it's 'agenda'.
In 'Love', there is no 'self' to serve. Agenda is all about 'self-serving'.

Unconditional love of whom? Of only others? Of only the self? Is there a separation between others and the self? If there is NO separation between the two (which it seems is your argument) then any act WE do to others must affect every single entity in existence and any action by any entity in existence must affect all other entities (including themselves and ourselves).

I'm seeing a logical disconnect.
Okay, you are correct in that I am suggesting that all is One.
That means that all Love is Self! Love!
All hate is Self! hate!
All judgment... etc!
It is not that what we 'do' affects 'the Universe', but We ARE the Universe; unchanging, unaffected, timeless, transcendental, One Omni- Self!
Logically what we 'do' cannot change the Universe, obviously, but what We Are IS the Universe; Self! Knowing! Here! Now!
There can be no One/Omni- AND 'causality/creation/motion/time'.

Logically, this does not seem possible. It does not seem Reasonable. The only way it could be possible is if you believe in the existence of an entity or force that is superior to or above us (at least to how we are in our current form) and is in control of every aspect of existence.

What does fail, is the notion of 'motion', which is logically impossible!
(T)Here is One 'entity'; 'Being', Dreaming of 'Doing'!

I would be happy to entertain such as an idea, but I would need strong evidence, personally, to accept it as factual. At this stage, there is WAY too much to lose by accepting such an argument without strong evidence, whereas there is WAY too much to gain by not accepting such an argument until there is reason to do so.

I am well equipt to support anything that I offer.
With what, exactly, do you take umbrage?
That unconditional Love exists?
That therein is a lack of agenda?

I would never offer something to be accepted as a 'fact'. Neither science nor philosophy deal in 'facts'.
'Facts' are no different than 'beliefs'.
It's all 'tentative theory', born of experience, logic, anecdote (even acceptable in court, at times), etc...
All I offer is a Perspective, perhaps some food for thought.
I have no 'beliefs' to spread.

I don't believe we can put it into context. And the explanation I give for that is we don't know where to start and where to begin.

Neither do I, but not anything can exist without 'context'.
Where to begin? A dictionary is a great place to begin the process of isolation into 'context', is this, is not that...
Everything that is perceived is perceived in it's context.
At this moment, 'I' have a context before this keyboard, etc... final context is always as a feature of Universe, until context (the conditional)is transcended.

originally posted by: namelesss

I'm seeing a logical disconnect.
Okay, you are correct in that I am suggesting that all is One.
That means that all Love is Self! Love!
All hate is Self! hate!
All judgment... etc!
It is not that what we 'do' affects 'the Universe', but We ARE the Universe; unchanging, unaffected, timeless, transcendental, One Omni- Self!
Logically what we 'do' cannot change the Universe, obviously, but what We Are IS the Universe; Self! Knowing! Here! Now!
There can be no One/Omni- AND 'causality/creation/motion/time'.

There is certainly a logical disconnect, no disagreement there. I don't understand how anything that exists within a system cannot have some type of logical basis? If you do not define the parameters of something, how can it be said to begin or end? How can you measure/notice/experience it if it lacks some sort of boundary?

What does fail, is the notion of 'motion', which is logically impossible!
(T)Here is One 'entity'; 'Being', Dreaming of 'Doing'!

Motion is logically impossible? How are you able to communicate with me right now? Even if it were by telepathy, how could that NOT be described as a form of motion? How can anything be measured or recognised if it isn't moving/changing/rearranging?

I am well equipt to support anything that I offer.
With what, exactly, do you take umbrage?
That unconditional Love exists?
That therein is a lack of agenda?

I take "umbrage" with your claim of this phenomenon of "unconditional love". If unconditional love is genuine, then in the way you are presenting it, it must be prevalent everywhere or at least able to be tapped into/channelled anywhere in existence. Which seems VERY difficult to believe considering the experiences of what's happening all around us.

I would never offer something to be accepted as a 'fact'. Neither science nor philosophy deal in 'facts'.
'Facts' are no different than 'beliefs'.
It's all 'tentative theory', born of experience, logic, anecdote (even acceptable in court, at times), etc...
All I offer is a Perspective, perhaps some food for thought.
I have no 'beliefs' to spread.

I don't disagree. Please do expand on this section.

Neither do I, but not anything can exist without 'context'.
Where to begin? A dictionary is a great place to begin the process of isolation into 'context', is this, is not that...
Everything that is perceived is perceived in it's context.
At this moment, 'I' have a context before this keyboard, etc... final context is always as a feature of Universe, until context (the conditional)is transcended.

A dictionary is not immune to the power of contextual realisation. When you say "everything that is perceived.." I trust you mean all living beings with the ability to perceive? If not, can you explain how a toothpick on my table cannot be aware that I am about to pick it up and throw it into my rubbish bin?

Not going to far off topic I hope but,

I would say you are really good in pointing to others

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
posted by: namelesss
Motion is logically impossible?

Here's one bit of logic;
Shall we walk?
Before we cover a mile, we must first cover a half mile.
And before covering a half mile/foot, we must traverse yet half that distance.
Ultimately, we can never begin to walk/move.

Movement is an appearance, like on a film projected onto a screen.
The 'action' passing before us is really a series of quanta, moments of just 'insufficient duration to have any temporal qualities.
Moments are literally 'timeless'.
'Motion' takes 'time' to happen.
'Time' is the measurement of 'motion', but one illusion is measuring the next and on ad infinitum.
One can, of course, say that there is a rock, lets measure it.
It can also be said that without all our measuring devices, there would be nothing to meansure, nothing measurable.
The Reality is that we/Reality is transcendental, unconditional, and all devices and measurements are 'conditional', dualistic.
'Time' and 'motion' is a trick of Consciousness, but Reality is in an momentary state of unchanging Universe.

If everything is One, how can motion exist?
There would be chains of causality emanating from the slightest 'motion' that would have Universal consequences!
Flicking a booger would affect the entire Universe, wipe out a civilization on Antares, cause a solar flare...
Now imagine everyone constantly, with all and every action 'altering' the entire Universe.
Gee we must be powerful Gods to move Universes at the flick of a Divine Booger!
And my flicking prevented the Universe from granting you that new chair that you wanted, yet you are working on the Universe... etc... etc... etc...
When scientists assume 'motion' (philosophers critically examine such premises), then they are forced to make asses of themselves with such perennial nonsense as the 'Multiverse theory'.
A new Universe is created by our desires/flicking.
What vanity!
It only makes sense that, despite the 'appearances', motion and time is impossible.
Thus causality/creation is impossible.

How are you able to communicate with me right now? Even if it were by telepathy, how could that NOT be described as a form of motion? How can anything be measured or recognised if it isn't moving/changing/rearranging?

First, we imagine motion and time, then we can break out the measuring tapes.
Science has certainly been hindered for a long time in that they couldn't see anything that they couldn't measure, like Consciousness.
Until quantum discovered Consciousness;

"Consciousness is the ground of all being!" - Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics

I take "umbrage" with your claim of this phenomenon of "unconditional love". If unconditional love is genuine, then in the way you are presenting it, it must be prevalent everywhere or at least able to be tapped into/channelled anywhere in existence.

I do not say 'prevalent', at the moment.
In a couple centuries it will be Universal.
At the moment, humanity is emerging from it's insanity.
For this 'healing' to happen, the toxins, the 'puss' must come to the surface and be exposed to the Light to heal.
There is lots of infections in humanity to heal.
Not all will be healed, and there are many that need a skimming from the gene pool.
Wars are a great means of skimming the gene pool!
"In the future, there will not be any religion, we will ALL be mystics, or we will not be!"
The evidence is clear that no matter where you are, one can find/become Enlightened/unconditional Love (Nirvana/Heaven...)!

Which seems VERY difficult to believe considering ... what's happening all around us.

No beliefs desired.
Merely thought.
Healing hurts.
Considering that we have been insane for 135,000 years (schizo-sapiens), a lousy 2 centuries to heal and Shine is amazing!
We need all the war and such to thin the herd to those who will me mystics, or won't be.

"I would never offer something to be accepted as a 'fact'. Neither science nor philosophy deal in 'facts'.
'Facts' are no different than 'beliefs'.
It's all 'tentative theory', born of experience, logic, anecdote (even acceptable in court, at times), etc...
All I offer is a Perspective, perhaps some food for thought.
I have no 'beliefs' to spread."

I don't disagree. Please do expand on this section.

What, exactly would you like me to expand upon?
(Running up against space limits here.)

When you say "everything that is perceived.." I trust you mean all living beings with the ability to perceive? If not, can you explain how a toothpick on my table cannot be aware that I am about to pick it up and throw it into my rubbish bin?

The Universe IS Consciousness.
No matter what the local apparent flickering images seem like (living human, the sun...), they have no effect upon Consciousness, and are contained within.
Ultimately, all the 'flickering images' of 'life' are 'make-believe', all 'imagination' made of 'Mindstuff'!
So if the universe is Consciousness, then everything that exists, is perceived, is 'mindstuff'.
So whether you perceive a toothpick or an elephant, they are basically the same.
Different Perspectives of the same One Reality.
It is not the human that has Consciousness and not the stick, there is Consciousness of human and stick.
Every point in the entirety of the ever Universe is a unique Soul/Perspective.
Thus, in all of Reality/Truth, all is Known/experienced by/in Consciousness!