[VinceG]

After thinking about it, I actually do want to discuss contexts more.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Actually, I DID learn something from Hawkins. I gained a clear understanding of context. In one context, man chooses and acts. In a larger context, God is the creator and man is the creation. In another context, God is both the source and substance, the noumenon and phenomenon, creator and created, subject and object. In the largest context, all distinctions collapse, lacking any dualistic counterparts. (i.e., if the object IS the subject, the distinction has no meaning)

Originally Posted by VinceG

As far as I can tell, in none of those contexts does God act in any other fashion than as Creator.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

As you can see, the larger the context, the more difficult it is to conceptualize and grasp, and so everything must be talked about in a given context. Contexts are complete within themselves and include their own content. They are ways of talking about things, but no context is ultimately true. It should be understood that larger contexts always supersede smaller ones, so for example man as a volitional being is NOT true in the context in which God is inclusive of phenomena (humans), and so man is not a volitional God. The larger contexts are always closer to the truth, but the Truth is not found in any context as it refers to that which precedes the conceptual mind.

Originally Posted by VinceG

Why do larger contexts supersede smaller ones? I see no reason why they should do so. Your example is flawed because you're going out-of-context, not because one context is 'better' than any other.

Your contexts are basically the levels of consciousness, so lets talk about that, because, as you say, the larger contexts are difficult to conceptualize directly. Crime exists on one level, and it exists on all the levels above it. What changes is how those perceiving from the higher contexts view it.

No information gets invalidated, only recontextualized.

And if you really read all eight of Hawkins books, you should have learned more than "something."

Further, if contexts are really complete within themselves, then the attempt to take concepts from one context and place them in another does not invalidate anything, but it merely creates a new context. There does not just have to be three contexts mentioned, there are also many contexts in between those three, as they're just definitions using words anyway.

In one of those contexts, you have the curious case of the volitional God. I think this context was explored thoroughly in the ancient times, particularly with the Greeks. Sure, the people there were operating at a much lower level, but then people never operate on the same level as their gods.