Context is everything.. and subtext is everything else.

Published by skuderjaymes in the blog skuderjaymes. Views: 61

Context is everything.. and subtext is everything else.. or put another way... what you say is ultimately colored by who you are. And who you are is colored by where you've been and what you've learned. And so, outside of general commands and instructions like, "pass me that book", everything you say is a unique expression of you. Everything you mean is unique. To the degree that I understand your meaning, is the degree that I understand you as person. But before I can understand you, I must be able to empathize with you, for without empathy, I cannot see what you see therefore I cannot value, even in theory, what you value, therefore, I cannot understand you for lack of empathy.

Everything we have to say, is in everything we say. Every substantive thing we utter communicates our entire being. And this goes for other fundamental expressions also.. how we move, for example, contains our entire selves. How walk, our facial expressions, how we talk, how we smile and laugh and cry.. all of those things reveal who we are.

One of the reasons military training focuses so much on marching and uniformity is to strip each individual of their independent selves for the sake of creating a new conglomerative self free of all of the substance, values, etc. of our individual lives, thereby enabling soldiers to be led by a new constructed consciousness known as military doctrine.. orders.. protocols for the sake of satisfying military objectives.

The same thing happens in the Church.. one of the first things you are asked to do is to suspend your own conception of things.. which, again, is made up of your experiences.. and to, instead, accept a wholly foreign pre-configured set of values and experiences in the form of Religious doctrine for the sake of satisfying religious objectives.

And I use the Church and the Military as examples not to start a debate about the Church or the Military or to condemn them as institutions; as conceptual models, they are both actually neutral. If we have to judge them in terms of good or bad, I'd say: it depends on the doctrine they adopt and the actions they take..

It's for these reasons that I find dictionary definitions to be nothing more than theoretical frames for meaning. Actual meaning depends almost entirely on who said what to who, when they said it, where they said it, why they said it and how they said it. Clarity is achieved when all of those elements are present. When 1 or more of those elements is missing, things become less clear. The question, "who are you talking to?" for example.. can

(To Be Continued)

--------------- scraps--------------------

what you make of your experience and how you choose to use it, speaks directly to what you are about.


Theres an excellent blog that I came across the other day. One of the things I like about it is how it has a section that explains the bloggers definitions for certain words. I like that concept.. I think its a great step forward toward clarity.
chuck and Zuri Armani like this.
You need to be logged in to comment