Understanding ‘Context’ is the antidote to madness.
Words are only signifiers of meaning
The meanings of words are not absolute or fixed.
They are quite stretchable, and can range all the way from literal to the abstract.
Words are more like signifiers or pointers.
The meaning understood from a word depends upon the context/subject/frame/theme/topic and the vastness of scope.
You can point your finger towards a leaf in a tree,
But if the moon is in the same line, you may also be pointing at the moon.
Similarly, the range of the signified meaning is all the way from the immediate to its most far out abstract.
For instance, the word emptiness.
In the ordinary practical context, it would point to a meaning of there being no physical objects in a given space.
But in the metaphysical abstract context, it could mean emptiness of substance or essence (which is the truth of the entire manifest creation that appears to us).
Imo there is no contradiction in these 2 meanings derived from the same word,
Just like how your finger pointing to the moon could also be pointing at some other closer object like a tree leaf in the same line of sight.
The reason I use so many synonyms when writing my posts
The meaning of every word is usually much beyond the dictionary meaning.
There are so many large contexts and meanings associated with each word.
Every word abstractly is a pointer to a kind of knowing.
So when I want to convey something, I use many synonyms to point at ‘scope and essence’.
Essence = Intersection.
Scope = Union.
For instance: Consider a set like ‘God/Reality/Existence/Field’.
Here, essence = intersection of the meaning-images in the set.
And scope = union of the meaning-images in the set.
I see every word as pregnant with a large amount of connotation/meaning/context/associations.
The use of sets of synonyms thus serves as a communication technique/device for me to convey scope and essence.
The real solution to anything
Solving things is irrelevant.
The real solution is always dissolution.
The real solution to anything is the transcendence of that thing.
Where the problem is subsumed and swallowed,
Into a higher space/context within you that is awakened.
The problem-solution paradigm exists in darkness,
Once the light is brightened, it all vanishes into the light.
Like how when you wake up from sleep, the dream vanishes.
Like how all the ghosts simply disappear once sunlight shines.
The real solution is always dissolution.
The real solution to anything is the transcendence of that thing.
Where the problem is subsumed and swallowed,
Into a higher space/context within you that is awakened.
The problem-solution paradigm exists in darkness,
Once the light is brightened, it all vanishes into the light.
Like how when you wake up from sleep, the dream vanishes.
Like how all the ghosts simply disappear once sunlight shines.
‘Power’ and ‘Doing’ in the world
In the regular worldly sense, all power comes from structure.
And maintaining structural integrity is essential for doing anything.
Like imagine instead of tongs, you had 2 feathers.
Can you then even pick up a cookie with those 2 feathers?!
The power of the tongs comes from its structural resilience.
People in the world who are committed to being objective,
Are essentially committed to power itself.
Power here is holding one perspective “as absolute” and then changing/altering the surroundings with that in mind.
The example I used of the “feathers vs. tongs”, applies to the intangible and invisible mind levels too.
There is no “essential difference” between objective and subjective.
Objective = Solidified subjective.
“Doing something” implies “achieving some goal”.
And so the “goal” becomes the “organizing principle” for “the structure” you decide to cathect into.
And the goal itself comes from the “belief structure” which conditions the person’s vision, into seeing the goal as relevant/important in the first place.
The “belief structure conditioning” is from programming, environmental, social, cultural, parental, childhood influences, and the person’s own innate tendencies/nature/potentials/level of evolution/level of vision capacity etc. (referred to as samskharas, vasanas etc. in yogic terminology)
So there are different manifestations of power from:
Subtle —-to—– Gross
Spanning from the subtle and extending all the way to the gross.
For instance, which is more powerful?
A burned solid clay pot OR a ball of clay?
Generally we define power by our notion of usefulness/goals.
From that notion, the burnt clay pot is much more powerful to hold something inside it.
But metaphysical speaking and from a broader context, the ball of clay is actually more powerful. Because it can be shaped into anything.
Just like water is more powerful than anything solid.
Because the solid is rigid, and rigidity is also fragility.
However strong the solid is, it cannot match the strength of water.
Bruce Lee is known to have had profound insight from striking water, which is why his famous expression came out: “…Be like water my friend…”.
So there is apparent power and there is real power.
Like supposing a gunman is hired by a secret agency to threaten someone.
Who is more powerful? The gunman? OR the agency?
The gunman has the gun, and looks to be the one in power.
But really he is only carrying out the agency’s bidding who have convinced him that being an instrument for their cause would be in his interest.
So it is the agency that is actually in power, is it not?
Lets take another example that challenges our standard notion of what power is.
Is an adult more powerful than a child?
Well from the looks of it, it seems like obviously the adult is more powerful.
But the child can be programmed to become anything.
Actuality is ONE, but POTENTIAL is Infinite.
I think the essential difference I am pointing out here is of:
The power to do —-vs—– The power to be.
And I would argue the power to BE vastly trumps the power to DO, from a metaphysical context, because it is prior to the doing, and it is what shapes the doing itself.
And maintaining structural integrity is essential for doing anything.
Like imagine instead of tongs, you had 2 feathers.
Can you then even pick up a cookie with those 2 feathers?!
The power of the tongs comes from its structural resilience.
People in the world who are committed to being objective,
Are essentially committed to power itself.
Power here is holding one perspective “as absolute” and then changing/altering the surroundings with that in mind.
The example I used of the “feathers vs. tongs”, applies to the intangible and invisible mind levels too.
There is no “essential difference” between objective and subjective.
Objective = Solidified subjective.
“Doing something” implies “achieving some goal”.
And so the “goal” becomes the “organizing principle” for “the structure” you decide to cathect into.
And the goal itself comes from the “belief structure” which conditions the person’s vision, into seeing the goal as relevant/important in the first place.
The “belief structure conditioning” is from programming, environmental, social, cultural, parental, childhood influences, and the person’s own innate tendencies/nature/potentials/level of evolution/level of vision capacity etc. (referred to as samskharas, vasanas etc. in yogic terminology)
So there are different manifestations of power from:
Subtle —-to—– Gross
Spanning from the subtle and extending all the way to the gross.
For instance, which is more powerful?
A burned solid clay pot OR a ball of clay?
Generally we define power by our notion of usefulness/goals.
From that notion, the burnt clay pot is much more powerful to hold something inside it.
But metaphysical speaking and from a broader context, the ball of clay is actually more powerful. Because it can be shaped into anything.
Just like water is more powerful than anything solid.
Because the solid is rigid, and rigidity is also fragility.
However strong the solid is, it cannot match the strength of water.
Bruce Lee is known to have had profound insight from striking water, which is why his famous expression came out: “…Be like water my friend…”.
So there is apparent power and there is real power.
Like supposing a gunman is hired by a secret agency to threaten someone.
Who is more powerful? The gunman? OR the agency?
The gunman has the gun, and looks to be the one in power.
But really he is only carrying out the agency’s bidding who have convinced him that being an instrument for their cause would be in his interest.
So it is the agency that is actually in power, is it not?
Lets take another example that challenges our standard notion of what power is.
Is an adult more powerful than a child?
Well from the looks of it, it seems like obviously the adult is more powerful.
But the child can be programmed to become anything.
Actuality is ONE, but POTENTIAL is Infinite.
I think the essential difference I am pointing out here is of:
The power to do —-vs—– The power to be.
And I would argue the power to BE vastly trumps the power to DO, from a metaphysical context, because it is prior to the doing, and it is what shapes the doing itself.
Love and Positive Vision are the same thing
To really see something is to see the “source inspiration and beauty” behind that which is seen.
It is to see its place in a larger context, in a larger framework of meaning.
Otherwise, it is only surface/superficial seeing.
Seeing/Vision is a lot more about context than the content of the sensory-appearance of what is seen.
The following concepts are closely related to each other = the concept of seeing/vision, value, and beauty.
When you see something from love, you see the creation as the creator would see it.
There is no upper ceiling to perceiving source inspiration/love/positive vision/value/beauty.
The deeper your positive seeing, the more your capacity for the above qualities.
Please refer to my earlier blog post to learn about what I mean by positive vs. negative vision:
https://perceptionflow.com/2018/10/16/the-concept-of-negative-vision/
The connection between IDENTIFICATION and LOVE:
******************************************************
This is an extremely deep topic, but I’ll try to give a few pointer examples.
* For example, say, you look at your personal laptop that has all your life’s work = personal photos, videos, files, documents, music, playlists etc.
All that gamut of context is tied into your seeing of the laptop.
So seeing = both context and content.
Its not possible to quantify, but to give an idea, the content is just 1% or less while 99% or more is context.
The sensory impression is only a pointer to the tree of knowledge that resides in the mind.
Let’s say, you have a dog, and that dog too sees your laptop.
How would he see it? The 99% of context, memories, attachment, associations, information you connect with the laptop would not be present for the dog.
So he would see it as just “content” mostly.
* It is like looking at a stranger’s smartphone of an unknown make/model (so very little associative connections as such).
Imagine how different would that be from seeing your own smartphone.
* Imagine the difference between looking at your children vs. looking at a random person’s children.
When an artist creates a work from source inspiration, he is seeing from positive vision.
He sees the value/worth/significance/importance/beauty of his work, because it came forth from his channeling of source inspiration itself.
If he puts it up in an exhibition, and if various art critics come and start critiquing it, then the critics are seeing from negative vision here.
They are not seeing it the way the artist sees his own work which is from positive vision.
Both positive and negative vision are kinds of vision.
The distinction is that, positive vision connects what is seen to the source of creation (which is the potential/love/inspiration), while negative vision does not do that.
Negative vision does not see what the art piece is, rather it sees what it is not by comparing it to something else that is loved.
That is the fundamental difference.
Positive vision is to see from the point of view of the creator.
It is to see its place in a larger context, in a larger framework of meaning.
Otherwise, it is only surface/superficial seeing.
Seeing/Vision is a lot more about context than the content of the sensory-appearance of what is seen.
The following concepts are closely related to each other = the concept of seeing/vision, value, and beauty.
When you see something from love, you see the creation as the creator would see it.
There is no upper ceiling to perceiving source inspiration/love/positive vision/value/beauty.
The deeper your positive seeing, the more your capacity for the above qualities.
Please refer to my earlier blog post to learn about what I mean by positive vs. negative vision:
https://perceptionflow.com/2018/10/16/the-concept-of-negative-vision/
The connection between IDENTIFICATION and LOVE:
******************************************************
This is an extremely deep topic, but I’ll try to give a few pointer examples.
* For example, say, you look at your personal laptop that has all your life’s work = personal photos, videos, files, documents, music, playlists etc.
All that gamut of context is tied into your seeing of the laptop.
So seeing = both context and content.
Its not possible to quantify, but to give an idea, the content is just 1% or less while 99% or more is context.
The sensory impression is only a pointer to the tree of knowledge that resides in the mind.
Let’s say, you have a dog, and that dog too sees your laptop.
How would he see it? The 99% of context, memories, attachment, associations, information you connect with the laptop would not be present for the dog.
So he would see it as just “content” mostly.
* It is like looking at a stranger’s smartphone of an unknown make/model (so very little associative connections as such).
Imagine how different would that be from seeing your own smartphone.
* Imagine the difference between looking at your children vs. looking at a random person’s children.
When an artist creates a work from source inspiration, he is seeing from positive vision.
He sees the value/worth/significance/importance/beauty of his work, because it came forth from his channeling of source inspiration itself.
If he puts it up in an exhibition, and if various art critics come and start critiquing it, then the critics are seeing from negative vision here.
They are not seeing it the way the artist sees his own work which is from positive vision.
Both positive and negative vision are kinds of vision.
The distinction is that, positive vision connects what is seen to the source of creation (which is the potential/love/inspiration), while negative vision does not do that.
Negative vision does not see what the art piece is, rather it sees what it is not by comparing it to something else that is loved.
That is the fundamental difference.
Positive vision is to see from the point of view of the creator.
Clarity and Complexity
I had a dream in the afternoon where I just felt so sure/assured/totally confident about one small thing.
And this kept on playing again and again in my mind like a loop, and then I woke up.
So this sent me back to the drawing board to contemplate on the nature of life/reality/god/self.
I wanted to structure what happened to me in a larger context/perspective.
I do this all the time, start from scratch and create a new fabric of meaning.
It is a kind of primordial creativity, that I really enjoy giving expression.
So here is my articulation of my thought process.
In the dream there was an immense feeling of certainty for an extremely narrow idea, and it kept on repeating until I woke up.
I think, this is a case of: “clarity + simplicity”
Whereas, for phenomena like mystical experiences of profound certitude, it would be a case of: “clarity + complexity”
Both of the above can also be seen as:
Simple order/harmony/integration —–vs—- Complex order/harmony/integration
An old Nokia 3100 phone (from the early 2000s) —-vs—- An IPhone XS today
Both the devices can work great, be fully functional, and integrated in their design. But what a difference there is, in their complexity!
So this would be a good analogy for: my looping simplistic certitude dream vs. a revelation of profound implications felt in the waking state.
And this kept on playing again and again in my mind like a loop, and then I woke up.
So this sent me back to the drawing board to contemplate on the nature of life/reality/god/self.
I wanted to structure what happened to me in a larger context/perspective.
I do this all the time, start from scratch and create a new fabric of meaning.
It is a kind of primordial creativity, that I really enjoy giving expression.
So here is my articulation of my thought process.
In the dream there was an immense feeling of certainty for an extremely narrow idea, and it kept on repeating until I woke up.
I think, this is a case of: “clarity + simplicity”
Whereas, for phenomena like mystical experiences of profound certitude, it would be a case of: “clarity + complexity”
Both of the above can also be seen as:
Simple order/harmony/integration —–vs—- Complex order/harmony/integration
An old Nokia 3100 phone (from the early 2000s) —-vs—- An IPhone XS today
Both the devices can work great, be fully functional, and integrated in their design. But what a difference there is, in their complexity!
So this would be a good analogy for: my looping simplistic certitude dream vs. a revelation of profound implications felt in the waking state.
Hierarchy of nested contexts
There is no ONE physical world in our experiential reality.
This is more of an abstract idea or concept we sometimes hold in our minds.
In experiential reality however, there is no such ONE world.
Rather there are many many worlds appearing as a nested context hierarchy.
A common context is the commonality.
It conveys “We both are seeing and inhabiting the same world”.
Transcendence is to move from your current context to a higher context.
So there is infinite transcendence(s) as there are infinite nested context hierarchies.
For example: From a geographical point of view, here is a nested context hierarchy:
…Multiverse -> Visible Universe -> Super Galaxy Cluster -> Galaxy Cluster -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Solar System -> Earth -> Continent -> Country -> State -> City -> Area -> Locality -> Building -> Floor number -> Apartment number -> Your room…
The 3 dots on either end is to show that it goes on indefinitely in both directions.
Have you seen the videos on YouTube where they would start from all the way out of the universe and zoom you all the way in until you reach quarks?
Coming to the social sphere, tuning into each context creates a different world inhabited by different people.
What we call ‘our world’ is the context we inhabit.
The status game in society:
People value/e-valu-ate themselves, and then sell themselves to others at a cost.
The whole status game is that: e-valu-ation.
The 2 parties evaluate each other on looks, talents, popularity, status, attractiveness, opportunities, commonality, happiness and so on.
People link up with each other in groups of equivalent status, which forms the common context.
Each context is a world, and you instantly access the common field of information that all the other inhabitants there are holding too.
In a sense that is what unites all of you, it is the context, or the common world.
I can speak about my experience:
– When I was in school (in India), the context was the same for all students in the state known as “state board”. So everyone had the same syllabus and more or less the same school system too. So that was the common context/common world. I was in the same world as most other students in the entire state and to a large extent the entire country.
– When I joined an Engineering college, that put me in that context world and gave me access to all other engineers in the country along with the status hierarchy inside that. There were some colleges which were graded at the same level as mine, and there were some other colleges that were of graded lower, and so on.
– Later, when working in an Indian IT company, I had access to all other friends fresh out of college working in the IT industry and many of my friends were working in similar IT firms as me.
– Then when doing my Masters in US, the university was the common context and that was the new world I found myself in. I could relate up, horizontally, and down the education ladder i.e. with PhD students, other masters students, undergrads and so on. I could share context with other friends doing Masters in other universities too, and so on.
– I then took up a job at a product development company in US, and I was in the world of post-grad professionals working for US IT companies.
So to summarize, I moved through 5 worlds:
– The world of school
– The world of undergrad college
– The world of post-undergrad work
– The world of masters program at a large university
– The world of post-grad work
Now I am in a different world and I do not know what mystical new world/context awaits me.
So these contexts are OUR REAL WORLDS.
Talking to new sexual interests often diminishes the fantasy/lust
When talking to a person, you witness their context and their activity within it.
When only seeing a person, you only witness their body.
It leaves a hole of context, because you do not know anything else about them.
Therefore you can substitute this hole in context with your fantasy (fantasy is a context and the object is only the prop in it).
That is why often sexual desire can dissipate after talking to someone.
Because earlier, you would sharply objectify them and tie them to your fantasy context.
Now after talking to them, you witness their real context which displaces the fantasy context and ends the lust a lot of times.
When only seeing a person, you only witness their body.
It leaves a hole of context, because you do not know anything else about them.
Therefore you can substitute this hole in context with your fantasy (fantasy is a context and the object is only the prop in it).
That is why often sexual desire can dissipate after talking to someone.
Because earlier, you would sharply objectify them and tie them to your fantasy context.
Now after talking to them, you witness their real context which displaces the fantasy context and ends the lust a lot of times.
Inverted pyramid of context awareness
Enlightenment is the shifting of identification to the higher context of the formless whole.
To explain what I mean by context, say a kid of age 3 bumps his head against a table top.
He immediately starts crying and the pain is felt and experienced as all-encompassing.
Now, imagine an adult of age 40, goes through a similar experience by bumping his head against a wall.
The pain itself would be quite similar, however, the adult would quickly rub his head with a short exclaim, and continue about his business.
What is the difference really between the experience of the child and the adult?
I would say the pain experience is similar, but the world of a difference is in the CONTEXT (in awareness) in which the experience occurs.
The adult views/interprets the experience in a much much larger context compared to the child.
So accordingly the event is relatively non-meaningful and non-salient, compared to how the child experienced it.
Another metaphor I like to use, is to refer to the breath/depth of context as “Aperture of consciousness”.
When the aperture is super wide, one has the experience of satori and bliss.
When the aperture is really narrow, one is deeply fixated in a narrow frame.
A silent mind, silent heart/emotion, silent body would imply a super wide aperture. (by silence I do not mean forced silence, but natural silence that is an outcome of the full and total processing of all experience in each domain)
An example of a super narrow aperture would be, if say a wild animal is in your living room. Suddenly all of your context shrinks into just the thought of that wild animal and your fight/flight/freeze response to it.
Journey to the Abstract 