Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:38 am
You are beating around the bush again
and introducing new perspective and contexts from the one I am asking from.
I would say your deflection to other context is a very stupid idea.
Say, you are 20 years old.
There is a gate with a sign "For Old People Only" [conventionally understood as above 65] to queue and avoid the long queue for example food stamps, rations, etc..
You will join the queue of older people because, to you are are also 'old' by your twisting thinking of defining yourself as 'old' and at the same time young.
You will expect other younger people to join you because they are also 'old.'
Imo the Johndoe seems to be in some kind of psychosis, probably a self-inflicted drug-induced psychosis. So his mind really automatically mixes together content from different contexts/perspectives, makes all kind of nonsensical connections between them, and he doesn't realize this at all, maybe he can't realize it. He can no longer understand contexts/perspectives like we do.
Looking back on this thread in order to consolidate notes I have found this post.
Actually, the problem of understanding context lies primarily with you.
From a premise where we quantify all existence as fundamentally 1, an inherent degree of connection occurs through this 1 and the nature of "context existing through further context" observes a problem similar to quantum entanglement as the context of one seemingly "seperate" reality is connected to another because both share a medium of "context".
Now this problem of "context" inevitably observes a form of structure where "context" is a definition of structure. In simpler terms, because one perspective/phenomenon has structure, and another phenomena/perspective also has structure, we percieved them as inherently different because of the difference in structure. However this difference of structure still shows them existing from a common bond of limit considering all phenomena as structures are composed of limits.
So where difference necessitates a form of seperation, this seperation occuring through structure observes a dual connection by structure itself. For example the fraction of 1/3 and 1/4 are different. However they are connected by the fact that they are not only fractions, as a relation of quantitative parts, but effectively observe 1 as the common denominator from which 3 and 4 extend as these numbers as divisors exist in the respect they are dividing 1 while being extensions of 1 itself. All differences observe a common bond as difference necessitates a form of opposition where one phenomena as positive and another as respectively negative form eachother and as such are interconnected.
To cycle back to the problem the problem of "context existing through context" is that this in itself is a context and we observe a fraction similar to
C/C→C where context is divided according to its projection through itself. In a seperate respect C→C/C as C→C observes a dualistic nature where context is projective in nature.
Context is directed movement whether of an abstract and/or physical nature. All context without a continuum is contradictory.
This reflects that all contexts are projective in nature and always extend beyond the previous context. In these terms we are left with all forms of reasoning as projecting towards higher forms of reasoning which inevitably lead to an inherent vagueness on part of the observer as the context which determines a common norm or set of rules is superceded by another.
Language is just a tool.
