By Noel Huntley
As the reader may have noted, relationship covers many things. In fact everything is in relationship to everything else, as implied previously by stating all knowledge and energy is contextual. However, in this case we shall give particular attention to human relationships as far as context is concerned. Nevertheless, we shall come to realise the mind works the same way as the universe and we are still dealing with features of nature's computer system.
All conflict in human interactions must be based on differences in assumed context. The context is assumed since if it were not assumed, that is, stated, then there would be no problem. We might consider there could be constructive arguments, but even this is based on differences in context: experience, knowledge, personality, etc.
If each person could perceive the other's assumed, or unconscious, context there would be no point in continuing any argument. (However, sometimes the context is one of sheer prejudice and aberration but when spotted by the individual the irrationality will be changed.) Let us give an example of common, assumed, logical contexts.
The husband is repairing some electrical appliance, maybe an iron. He occasionally tests it by switching on the electrical current. The wife passes by and says, 'Be careful!' The husband takes this as an invalidation and a conflict ensues. The basic problem here is one of context, that is, hidden or unconscious or assumed contexts.
The husband's assumed background context relevant to this issue is that he must be careful not to damage the iron (this could be based on past incidents in which he has ruined electrical appliances). The context immediately places a bias on the wife's statement, 'Be careful'. He assumes she means be careful you may damage the iron, which upsets him. But here the wife's assumed context was based on memories of injury with electrical appliances. Thus her 'Be careful!' meant, 'Don't hurt yourself'.
In this particular example any ensuing exchange of communication would soon reveal their different contexts and the upset resolved. Many such contexts, however, are unconscious and not generally recoverable, resulting in no recognition of the contexts assumed. Human beings have countless contexts, conscious and unconscious. These can be objective or subjective.
Objective contexts can generally be assumed. They apply in a general manner, that is, are common to all. One may take it for granted that others will reference the same context. The contexts will thus be the same with no conflict in communications. Nevertheless, contexts which should be obvious are sometimes 'deliberately' (in the margin of consciousness) changed just to make another person wrong or to assert one's greater understanding. For example, you comment that a work of art is good (you are taking into account---the context---that it was done by a member of an amateur society) but your 'friend' contradicts and shows up the weaknesses (his context is the professional standard). The 'friend' could easily have duplicated your context, which could be argued to be an objective one, and there would have been no conflict.
With particularly personal subjective contexts we have a different situation. The assumed information here is not common to many. If this is not recognised there may only be a slight chance that the same context will be referenced by another person. Generally, all robots might be expected to be programmed with objective---same for all---contexts. But if robots are specialised in different fields, such as art or science, they would have different assumed contexts. A robot programmed with technical understanding would, when confronted with the problem of understanding a work of art, assume that it must be analysed (just as would many humans---though incorrectly). A human prejudice is a simple example of an aberrated subjective context. When it is fully perceived in all its irrationality it is immediately erased by the person. But anyone knows only too well the difficulty of communicating to a biased individual.
Now we might protest that there are examples of conflict where clearly no problem of context is involved such as one individual being deliberately selfish, or even cruel to another, and the other protesting or retaliating. It is still context. If the perpetrator had sufficient empathy he or she could not hurt the other person. How another person feels is a potential context to be recognised---not intellectually---in any communications and is achieved knowingly or unknowingly by reading/sensing their vibrations.
We are each referencing countless contexts of information (which can even form abstract fields of influence) and thus are virtually permanently in a state of prejudiced perception or biased understanding. Each person's mind, belief systems, mental data are far more different from one another than is generally realised. Nevertheless, much of this vast field of contexts is the same for each person, for example, forming the concepts of the objective third-dimensional world.
When conflict arises in relationships we have a situation where, say, the subjective context or reality of one person does not match the objective reality of the other. By subjective reality we mean one's own viewpoint based on one's own data and experiences. And by objective we mean the acceptable/standardised context, which exists in the objective world of established normal actions or behaviour.
The subjective reality is composed of assumed contexts which are either unconscious, or in the margin of consciousness and not being confronted. One's behaviour is automatically based on these contexts and it can be very easy to assume that this subjective reality or behaviour, is objective, meaning one assumes that it is the same for others; that is, is acceptable, or the norm, or the other person is experiencing or thinking the same thing. And we have the well-known behaviour trait of taking things for granted.
For example, person A arranges to call on person B at a given hour. Person A may have assumed considerable flexibility in the appointed time such as even being an hour late. This may not be acceptable to person B. Thus in general it is important that person A recognises his or her own subjective non-standard behaviour and indicate it to the other, or change to the objective reality, which would be arriving more precisely at the expected time.
A basic objective context would be our 3D existence. We can assume this with no problems. However, if a person is accessing other dimensions and cannot integrate this with normal perception, he or she will automatically be referencing a different context and might be labelled schizophrenic.
The ego automatically puts the damper on higher contexts. This is useful in acquiring knowledge, such as in science, since it enables man to at least understand something---even though in a limiting way---of which he can make use. Unfortunately the ego then prevents change. It puts up a tremendous resistance to new theories which may turn out to be more general, or global, and highly preferential.
Our objective contexts seemingly forever expand out like concentric spheres into concepts we could not even remotely grasp with the conscious logical mind. Imagine the following scenario. The kitchen in a house of many rooms represents a universe. Beings in this kitchen constantly reference the attribute kitchen-ness (a place for cooking, eating, washing dishes, etc.---metaphorically this is the total nature of this universe). To these beings whose minds are attuned, and familiar only with kitchen-ness their consciousness cannot imagine the attributes, lounge-ness, bedroom-ness, etc. As these beings advance and evolve, maybe taking thousands or millions of years, they can grasp these other attributes, dimensions, universes, and in fact can understand the whole house as a single concept (as we can for a house). But they may have no idea about street-ness, or town-ness, and so on.
Ordinary logic requires context. By changing the context we can actually cause the answer to a question to change from 'yes' to 'no'. That is, the answers may be interchanged according to the context. Let us give a humourous fictitious example to illustrate how this may occur and one in which context is exploited in court cases by prosecutors.
The prosecutor asks the accused, 'Were you or were you not caught trespassing on the land? Answer yes or no!' The accused hesitates then replies, 'Yes, but . . .'The prosecutor interrupts, 'Thank you!' The accused was attempting to state the context of the circumstances in which he fell from an aeroplane----and even broke his leg!
Thus we see that the answer 'yes' or 'no' is interchangeable depending on the context. Without the information that the person fell onto the land it is a simple case of trespassing.
In an advanced civilisation where telepathy is a normal perception there would never be any arguments, since each person would know the other person's context---this would not just be intellectual contexts but also emotional ones.
Return to Home Page