About CONTEXT

Nothing has meaning without context. Everything is relative.

If everything is dark than nothing is dark. Dark is only dark next to light.

Half of what we say is lost before we even said it

Because we simply utter it in the wrong context

If you talk about dark in utter darkness — your words are just meaningless

Everything is dark therefore nothing is dark therefore you’re not saying anything

If you talk about dark vs bright, when everyone is talking about pink vs blue — your words are just meaningless

They speak of how lovely pink is and how pink it is — and you respond with why dark is dark and what are the shades of dark

You’re talking about two different things

Why is only half of what we say lost? Why not more? Don’t we speak foolishly all the time?

Indeed we do

We foolishly regurgitate the same drivel that others shitted on us before

The world at least half the time repeats the same drivel

And the other half repeats the same rebellion against the first half

But the point is — when the majority regurgitates the same drivel — then at least they are speaking about the same thing

Their words are the same and thus their thoughts are the same and thus their explanations and thus their contexts and their assumptions are all the same

Since you’re repeating the same — you’re not really saying anything

But at least what you’re saying is meaningful in that context

Because what you’re saying is repeating the doctrine of that context, the common assumptions and beliefs held by most men

The other half of the time however what you’re saying has no meaning

The other half of the time you strive to be heterodoxical

You strive to be an individual

Maybe you just strive to be a little different

Or you simply strive to actually find the truth, because for once you realised that it serves you

And thus you address half of the world, the world regurgitating the drivel of the commonly held beliefs — and you address it with your new iconoclastic ideas

Alas the world doesn’t hear you

Because the world doesn’t understand you

And this is because you failed to RELATE your new ideas to THEIR IDEAS

You failed to provide the context

You failed to relate to their context

And you failed to explain that which goes beyond their context and their comprehension and therefore is NOT obvious therefore incomprehensible

You failed that because you don’t even realise the necessity of context

You don’t even realise that everything is relative

And you don’t realise it — because you’re a fucking conformist, a “normie”, a mindless person — who only inherited all his “original” and groundbreaking and progressive and superior values and ideas from EVERYONE ELSE AROUND THEM.

Therefore all you really learned is to communicate with people who BY DEFAULT share the same context as you do

Who by DEFAULT have the same assumptions as you do

And you thought you were being an INDIVIDUAL, just like you thought you had free will — simply because you couldn’t have predicted this thought which came next, in the shape and form in which it came,

But this doesn’t mean this thought was NOT predictable over the long run,

And it doesn’t mean it wasn’t really preordained from the start

And it doesn’t mean it wasn’t really just entirely an inexorable product of your environment

And when you finally uttered it — you felt very original

And the bubble around you heard it — and they thought it was very original

It was a very original reformulation of the same drivel you all believe in

And this, precisely, is why you never learned to SPECIFY THE CONTEXT

You never had to

Because nothing you ever said or thought really was original

Nothing you ever said or thought really expanded on what everyone around you already believed

And definitely nothing you ever said or thought really TRANSCENDED the paradigm of the world around you

So when finally, per chance, this day comes,

That your perspective actually is different

You will fail to articulate it

Because you won’t understand the necessity of declaring the context

You won’t understand the necessity of relating your premises to their premises

You won’t understand the necessity of speaking the same language

And this is why half of what you say is meaningless

Because it lacks context

And the other half is meaningful only because it’s what everyone else beliefs. So it really is meaningless as well, not because of how unrelatable it is — but because of being PERFECTLY relatable, without expanding even by a millimeter

…

The day of your perspective being different will come, actually

Bubbles are extremely powerful

But nevertheless humans are just too imperfect, too fickle and unstable to maintain a consistent set of beliefs

Even by the virtue of your poor memory — you will eventually become separated from the sheep around you

Or by the virtue of your inescapable egoism and greed

And you and your fellow sheep will disagree

And it would actually be a great thing

Maybe if you fucking sheep could disagree more often — you could learn to actually pursuit the truth

Doubt is the mother of enlightenment

However since you never truly disagreed when it mattered — you never learned to agree when it matters

And you never learned to ESTABLISH THE CONTEXT

You never learned to establish the common ground

And now you fail to agree

And you speak “A” and I speak “B”

It’s all nonsense

You never learned to ground what you’re saying to the reality of the other person

They never learned to do it either

You’ll speak two different languages

I of course see it all the time

I see it in serious matters and tedious matters

I see it with man deep within their bubble and I see it with wasps threshing between different bubbles

I see you criticise something — but your criticism is meaningless.

It doesn’t even pick up from what has already been said before you — let alone put a cherry on top by ACTUALLY providing solutions

I see you say you believe something — but your belief is meaningless.

It in no way relates to the whole of the context, the assumptions and premises and ideas and relations

It merely sounds good

And it’s not even practical. It’s not an expedient estimation, a practical estimation necessary to make practical decision immediately

It’s a belief for the sake of belief

And what meaning does it have?

None

Not unless it relates thoughtfully to all that you know and all that you could know about the larger context in which it exists

Conclusion

Half the time what you say has meaning because it is a dull repetition, regurgitation of what everyone else is saying

It’s ultimately meaningless however because it leads nowhere. And that’s even assuming that it’s right. Which it rarely is. Consensus knows only as much “truth” as necessary to maintain the status quo

The other half the time, or perhaps more, or perhaps less, something causes you to speak AGAINST the commonly held beliefs: around you, or in general

And you utter your meaningless hot take

Without relating you to the whole that preceded it

And you achieve nothing

And you even thinking this way, WITHOUT THE CONTEXT, achieves nothing

It’s as meaningless

Saying “I disagree” is worth as much as saying “I’m going left not right”.

After you said it — now it’s time to walk

Only then is the meaning acquired

You said you disagree — now it’s time to prove WHY one should think different, WHY one should go different

Now it’s time to develop it, expound it, and explain it

If it doesn’t require explanation then it’s old and stale and threadbare and therefore meaningless

But if it requires explanation and context, and you fail to provide it — then it’s meaningless because it relates to nothing and is founded on nothing

Learn to think and learn to speak