Identity as Context
Identity as Context
The identity of a context is that which points to phenomenon. As such a context such as (P) derives its identity by pointing to said phenomenon such as a "cat" or "house". Under these terms the variation of one context to another such as "blue house" as "((H)B)" is the direction of one context to another. A statement such as "The cat ate the bird" observes one context "cat" directed to another context "bird" through another context of "ate". One context is directed to another through a medial context which directs them: ((C)A-->)(B). It is through the directing of one context to another that contexts multiply, ie "cat" and "bird" (C)(B), allowing for a contrast to occur which allows for definition.
Re: Identity as Context
The Logic of ContextualityEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:01 pm The identity of a context is that which points to phenomenon. As such a context such as (P) derives its identity by pointing to said phenomenon such as a "cat" or "house". Under these terms the variation of one context to another such as "blue house" as "((H)B)" is the direction of one context to another. A statement such as "The cat ate the bird" observes one context "cat" directed to another context "bird" through another context of "ate". One context is directed to another through a medial context which directs them: ((C)A-->)(B). It is through the directing of one context to another that contexts multiply, ie "cat" and "bird" (C)(B), allowing for a contrast to occur which allows for definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen%E2 ... er_theorem
Re: Identity as Context
Do NOT cite Wikipedia as a source if you wish to argue at academic standard.
(1) Wikipedia content is not peer-reviewed in the required academic sense.
(2) Wikipedia editorial policy explicitly prohibits both critical analysis and original thinking. The intention is to preserve the current popular (mis)understanding and deprecate cutting-edge research.
(3) Because Wikipedia content is decided by a democratic vote, and not by peer review, almost every article will include material which is outdated, fallacious, or misleading. The article listing all of the arguments to "prove that 0 is an even number" is an outstanding example.
If you want to be taken seriously in ANY forum, by anyone with a real brain, don't quote Wikipedia...
(1) Wikipedia content is not peer-reviewed in the required academic sense.
(2) Wikipedia editorial policy explicitly prohibits both critical analysis and original thinking. The intention is to preserve the current popular (mis)understanding and deprecate cutting-edge research.
(3) Because Wikipedia content is decided by a democratic vote, and not by peer review, almost every article will include material which is outdated, fallacious, or misleading. The article listing all of the arguments to "prove that 0 is an even number" is an outstanding example.
If you want to be taken seriously in ANY forum, by anyone with a real brain, don't quote Wikipedia...
Re: Identity as Context
I apologise, I have somehow posted this reply to the wrong thread. Please disregard. You two froot-loops carry on, disregard me.
Re: Identity as Context
If you want to be taken seriously outside of forums (e.g in the real world) stop peddling your academic bullshit onto real-world practitioners.alan1000 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 5:06 pm Do NOT cite Wikipedia as a source if you wish to argue at academic standard.
(1) Wikipedia content is not peer-reviewed in the required academic sense.
(2) Wikipedia editorial policy explicitly prohibits both critical analysis and original thinking. The intention is to preserve the current popular (mis)understanding and deprecate cutting-edge research.
(3) Because Wikipedia content is decided by a democratic vote, and not by peer review, almost every article will include material which is outdated, fallacious, or misleading. The article listing all of the arguments to "prove that 0 is an even number" is an outstanding example.
If you want to be taken seriously in ANY forum, by anyone with a real brain, don't quote Wikipedia...
In prescribing what we can and can't cite, say or think you are forcing your own ivory tower nomenclature onto others. Get fucked?
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: Identity as Context
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:01 pm The identity of a context is that which points to phenomenon. As such a context such as (P) derives its identity by pointing to said phenomenon such as a "cat" or "house". Under these terms the variation of one context to another such as "blue house" as "((H)B)" is the direction of one context to another. A statement such as "The cat ate the bird" observes one context "cat" directed to another context "bird" through another context of "ate". One context is directed to another through a medial context which directs them: ((C)A-->)(B). It is through the directing of one context to another that contexts multiply, ie "cat" and "bird" (C)(B), allowing for a contrast to occur which allows for definition.
Eodnhoj7,
The newborn anything has no identity but acquires its identity from the world context as the essence of what it is moves through this context. All the while experiencing itself relative to the context and through experiencing, feeling and understanding it developeds through its journey its identity formation ending only with death. Certainly, organisms are born with the potential of being a functioning member of their species and imprints upon the mother almost instantly but their full identity like our own is an ongoing process. When one speaks of categories one should remember they are artificial constructs that are aid to our limited mentalities. The full context if it is, is the world context and the world being an open system means perhaps the full context is the cosmos. The essence of all organisms is one and the same, you are related to every living thing on the planet, do not let appearances fool you, structure and form are the changing means by which the essence of organisms have evolved to find a niche in the physical world.
Re: Identity as Context
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 16, 2022 6:51 amEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:01 pm The identity of a context is that which points to phenomenon. As such a context such as (P) derives its identity by pointing to said phenomenon such as a "cat" or "house". Under these terms the variation of one context to another such as "blue house" as "((H)B)" is the direction of one context to another. A statement such as "The cat ate the bird" observes one context "cat" directed to another context "bird" through another context of "ate". One context is directed to another through a medial context which directs them: ((C)A-->)(B). It is through the directing of one context to another that contexts multiply, ie "cat" and "bird" (C)(B), allowing for a contrast to occur which allows for definition.
Eodnhoj7,
The newborn anything has no identity but acquires its identity from the world context as the essence of what it is moves through this context. All the while experiencing itself relative to the context and through experiencing, feeling and understanding it developeds through its journey its identity formation ending only with death. Certainly, organisms are born with the potential of being a functioning member of their species and imprints upon the mother almost instantly but their full identity like our own is an ongoing process. When one speaks of categories one should remember they are artificial constructs that are aid to our limited mentalities. The full context if it is, is the world context and the world being an open system means perhaps the full context is the cosmos. The essence of all organisms is one and the same, you are related to every living thing on the planet, do not let appearances fool you, structure and form are the changing means by which the essence of organisms have evolved to find a niche in the physical world.
In learning about the context in which it is born the newborn "x" interacts with said context, "y", causing changes within it. This allows for said changed context, "y", to be an extension of the original context, ie the newborn "x".
Through the change of one context into another, (x) directs itself to (y) as ((x)y) where the change of one context, the newborn (x), into another context, that of "whatever" (y), results in a new context ((x)y). What is common among "x" and "y", using the above symbols from the thread, is the "( )" representing context. In shorter terms this means context underlies context.
A universal context that contains itself is self-referential thus to speak of context results in ambiguity due to indefiniteness from the loss of contrast; as such "context" can mean just about anything and in speaking about such universals a loss of definition results.
In containing the universe through a series of abstractions the abstractions mean just about anything thus become vague. This thread can be an example of the loss of clarity when applying, or trying to apply, universals.
Re: Identity as Context
1. "Academic" is an authority thus falls under the fallacy of authority.alan1000 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 5:06 pm Do NOT cite Wikipedia as a source if you wish to argue at academic standard.
(1) Wikipedia content is not peer-reviewed in the required academic sense.
(2) Wikipedia editorial policy explicitly prohibits both critical analysis and original thinking. The intention is to preserve the current popular (mis)understanding and deprecate cutting-edge research.
(3) Because Wikipedia content is decided by a democratic vote, and not by peer review, almost every article will include material which is outdated, fallacious, or misleading. The article listing all of the arguments to "prove that 0 is an even number" is an outstanding example.
If you want to be taken seriously in ANY forum, by anyone with a real brain, don't quote Wikipedia...
2. "Peer review" is the bandwagon fallacy.
3. "Peer review" is a democracy thus pointing back to point 2.
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: Identity as Context
Eodnhoj7
["In learning about the context in which it is born the newborn "x" interacts with said context, "y", causing changes within it. This allows for said changed context, "y", to be an extension of the original context, ie the newborn "x".
Through the change of one context into another, (x) directs itself to (y) as ((x)y) where the change of one context, the newborn (x), into another context, that of "whatever" (y), results in a new context ((x)y). What is common among "x" and "y", using the above symbols from the thread, is the "( )" representing context. In shorter terms this means context underlies context.
A universal context that contains itself is self-referential thus to speak of context results in ambiguity due to indefiniteness from the loss of contrast; as such "context" can mean just about anything and in speaking about such universals a loss of definition results.
In containing the universe through a series of abstractions the abstractions mean just about anything thus become vague. This thread can be an example of the loss of clarity when applying, or trying to apply, universals.
[/quote]
Eodnhoj7,
Said changes in context by an individual to the entirety of the world context would be beyond our ability to measure, but there is no doubt that life upon the planet certainly does affect change to the physical world over great periods of time. The dialogue here does not lose clarity the physical world is context to the organism and through death and mutation it changes with the larger reality of the physical world. The climate crisis is due to humanities industries and overpopulation thus changing the physical world at a much faster rate. A rate which organisms do not have the ability to adapt to those changes--and it is thus, we are likely to perish as a species.
["In learning about the context in which it is born the newborn "x" interacts with said context, "y", causing changes within it. This allows for said changed context, "y", to be an extension of the original context, ie the newborn "x".
Through the change of one context into another, (x) directs itself to (y) as ((x)y) where the change of one context, the newborn (x), into another context, that of "whatever" (y), results in a new context ((x)y). What is common among "x" and "y", using the above symbols from the thread, is the "( )" representing context. In shorter terms this means context underlies context.
A universal context that contains itself is self-referential thus to speak of context results in ambiguity due to indefiniteness from the loss of contrast; as such "context" can mean just about anything and in speaking about such universals a loss of definition results.
In containing the universe through a series of abstractions the abstractions mean just about anything thus become vague. This thread can be an example of the loss of clarity when applying, or trying to apply, universals.
[/quote]
Eodnhoj7,
Said changes in context by an individual to the entirety of the world context would be beyond our ability to measure, but there is no doubt that life upon the planet certainly does affect change to the physical world over great periods of time. The dialogue here does not lose clarity the physical world is context to the organism and through death and mutation it changes with the larger reality of the physical world. The climate crisis is due to humanities industries and overpopulation thus changing the physical world at a much faster rate. A rate which organisms do not have the ability to adapt to those changes--and it is thus, we are likely to perish as a species.