All of what you wrote is coherent, logical and makes sense to the point of being obvious. Yet it is novel, at least to me. Very curious about how you think and write. Kindly indulge me.
Is this layering of contexts and their relationship plainly obvious to you? How do you "see" or perceive it? Is it visual or visceral?
How do you know it's not self evident to others, that it needs to be laid out in language to be made known? ("Is this really an insight or is this something that's common knowledge but just occurred to me?"- me at different points of my life)
Do you have to think hard for the examples or are they easy for you?
Thank you for your question, Arun. I have taken the liberty of responding to it in the form of a new post for paid subscribers (which I believe you have become)
“You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you.” - Kamala Harris, an aware materialist 😂
As I started this piece, I salivated watching you parade the hardcore anti-materialists to the guillotine. That was until I noticed I was watching from only a few paces behind them in the line.
I mean... there's just so much juicy content out there.
Also, I carried the blank page the whole read and then noticed how prideful I felt when it came back into focus at the end. Good for a smile. Thanks, Shiv.
I like how simply you describe the difference between "content" and "context". Of course, in the West, we have a bias for content rather than the shifting dynamics of context.
"When a person’s awareness naturally begins to orient towards an awareness of being, then and only then can one say, one is moving away from a primarily materialistic focus.
I want to caution you here, that I do not mean that one makes a concept, an ideology or a belief system out of ‘being’. For that just becomes more content."
As I read your essay, the phrase "situational awareness" kept popping up for me. Your concept of "context" brings up a Confucian sense of "morality" - a sense of context where the content is decided by its relationship to the "common good". Or, perhaps another way of stating it is: "How does my innate sense of the situation (personal content/context) fit within the greater collective content/context?" How is my sense of personal good aligned with that of the public good?
As you mention, content only has worth within a context, but context is only apparent when defined by content. As mortal beings, for survival, we require both the material and the mental. There is a dance, a harmony as to the best dynamic to meet the current moment. And yet the "Music of the Spheres" - an ethereal harmony thought by the Pythagoreans to be produced by the vibration of the celestial spheres - plays infinitely onwards.
beautiful piece! i love this opening line: "For me, there are few joys that can compare with the joy of witnessing a blank page"
and this: "...we are all materialists of one kind or another. You are no less a materialist if you don’t care for possessions and instead choose to focus on prioritizing your relationships with people. It just means that you are oriented towards a different form of content, of a more relational kind, that generates a different kind of value for you."
Would you say that the preference for the love of things (which I observe in the majority of people and also myself) lies mainly in our animalistic genetic heritage due to it's ensuring survival and procreation most efficiently? But then again animals don't seem possed by a need for maximum accumulation. (some may, but they are usually domesticated) You may adressed this already in posts before I started reading your page. Would be happy about a reply or link if anybody got one.
All of what you wrote is coherent, logical and makes sense to the point of being obvious. Yet it is novel, at least to me. Very curious about how you think and write. Kindly indulge me.
Is this layering of contexts and their relationship plainly obvious to you? How do you "see" or perceive it? Is it visual or visceral?
How do you know it's not self evident to others, that it needs to be laid out in language to be made known? ("Is this really an insight or is this something that's common knowledge but just occurred to me?"- me at different points of my life)
Do you have to think hard for the examples or are they easy for you?
Thank you for your question, Arun. I have taken the liberty of responding to it in the form of a new post for paid subscribers (which I believe you have become)
Bitcoin comes to mind :-)
“You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you.” - Kamala Harris, an aware materialist 😂
As I started this piece, I salivated watching you parade the hardcore anti-materialists to the guillotine. That was until I noticed I was watching from only a few paces behind them in the line.
I mean... there's just so much juicy content out there.
Also, I carried the blank page the whole read and then noticed how prideful I felt when it came back into focus at the end. Good for a smile. Thanks, Shiv.
Wow, my friend, you're really on a roll...
I like how simply you describe the difference between "content" and "context". Of course, in the West, we have a bias for content rather than the shifting dynamics of context.
"When a person’s awareness naturally begins to orient towards an awareness of being, then and only then can one say, one is moving away from a primarily materialistic focus.
I want to caution you here, that I do not mean that one makes a concept, an ideology or a belief system out of ‘being’. For that just becomes more content."
As I read your essay, the phrase "situational awareness" kept popping up for me. Your concept of "context" brings up a Confucian sense of "morality" - a sense of context where the content is decided by its relationship to the "common good". Or, perhaps another way of stating it is: "How does my innate sense of the situation (personal content/context) fit within the greater collective content/context?" How is my sense of personal good aligned with that of the public good?
As you mention, content only has worth within a context, but context is only apparent when defined by content. As mortal beings, for survival, we require both the material and the mental. There is a dance, a harmony as to the best dynamic to meet the current moment. And yet the "Music of the Spheres" - an ethereal harmony thought by the Pythagoreans to be produced by the vibration of the celestial spheres - plays infinitely onwards.
dear shiv,
beautiful piece! i love this opening line: "For me, there are few joys that can compare with the joy of witnessing a blank page"
and this: "...we are all materialists of one kind or another. You are no less a materialist if you don’t care for possessions and instead choose to focus on prioritizing your relationships with people. It just means that you are oriented towards a different form of content, of a more relational kind, that generates a different kind of value for you."
thank you for sharing as always!
love
myq
Would you say that the preference for the love of things (which I observe in the majority of people and also myself) lies mainly in our animalistic genetic heritage due to it's ensuring survival and procreation most efficiently? But then again animals don't seem possed by a need for maximum accumulation. (some may, but they are usually domesticated) You may adressed this already in posts before I started reading your page. Would be happy about a reply or link if anybody got one.
This reference describes the Ultimate Context of quite literally everything or Reality as Indivisible Conscious Light
http://www.integralworld.net/reynolds18.html