[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by VinceG

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

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.

In the example I used, the idea of the volitional person does indeed get invalidated in the larger context of oneness. Oneness IS more true (it's not about better/worse) than the smaller context of separation. Once the truth of the larger context is realized, one cannot go back to the smaller context and imagine that he has volition within that context. Volition was never actually true. This is what the larger context reveals.

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

The only way you could know what I should have learned is if you know what I knew before reading them. How could you possibly know?
BTW, just to be transparent about it, I checked the Veritas list of publications, and Hawky did publish 2 or 3 more books after I lost interest, so I did not read those.

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.

Smaller contexts are contained within larger contexts, like those Russian dolls where one doll is opened up to reveal another doll inside. Each doll is complete within itself, but the smaller one is contained within, and is therefore a part of, the larger one. The fact that each context has it's own content as reference doesn't prevent a given conceptual content (i.e. God) from showing up in multiple contexts.

As such, the realizations gleaned from the larger context does indeed reference all concepts common to both, altering how the truth of those concepts is seen, regardless of the context in which one is speaking.

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.

There are virtually as many contexts as one can imagine, because they are no more than vague categories of related concepts. What we're usually talking about is one concept as seen at various arbitrary 'levels' of consciousness, as you say. If we form too many iterations of context, it will be difficult to distinguish the content of one from another.

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.

Yes, of course there are many here on this forum (possibly most, I dunno) who believe in this volitional God, and my guess is they're not really ancient.