Context and Meaning

Always had a bit of a mental block here. But definitely got it now.

Consider the 3 instructions "Go Left", "Go Right", "Go Ahead","Turn Around" codes as "L","R","A","T".

If we are encoding entering a maze we might have a string like this:

"AALARRAALRLLA"

And once we are in this position we would leave again using the string:

"TARRLRAALLARAA"

Turn around, and then mirror your moves: A (180degress) maps to A (180degress) and L(90) -> R(270) and R(270) -> L(90).

And this works for any system isomorphic with the maze. So they don't need to be right angle turns, they could be branches on a tree.

Now what about context? This is a very trivial example but you cannot jumble up those characters. They must be performed exactly in the right sequence. And that means that the first "L" we encounter at move 3 must be preceded by two Aheads to work. If we went Left at the start it is most probable (not impossible) we would not arrive at the same place as if we went "Ahead."

In a crude way then there is a "context" at each point in the maze and the next move "means" a different thing depending  upon that history and context.

We are more use to "context" in another sense however which is like Gilbert Ryle's "category Mistake."

"She sat down in a flood of tears"

is the not the same as

"She sad down in the theatre"

While she literally sits down "in" (side) the theatre, she does not sit down "inside" the flood of tears. There is not a flood of tears anywhere to sit down in. The "in" means something else, that she is "in" a state of crying.

There was a movement to link words exactly with meanings. But it was quickly realised that in different sentences words take on different uses and meanings. This is similar to the LRAT characters above. The exact purpose or use of a word like a LRAT only makes sense if you walk the maze and find out where to use it. This is the process of reading or listening. As you read (like even in this blog) you are building up a picture like a maze, so that the next word or sentence has a particular meaning. If I suddenly say that it has started raining here, that means two things now. (1) The literal fact it has started raining, but within the context of this writing (2) it is an illustration of what I am saying that what has been said before influences the mental move we make in the maze. This is actually a very complex position we have arrived at here, since I am illustrating the position we have arrived at in the maze of this blog post but arriving at this position in the blog post! Head ache.

Anyway the question remains that in films like "Inception" or "Primer" or "Matrix" where we have a choice in each scene of whether this is "waking" or a "dream" in the Inception, or the "present" or "past" in the Primer or "reality" or "virtual reality" in the Matrix. Are we to view these binary options on the same level like "Left" "Right" in the maze. Or as we usually like to think "Reality" has a special place and "Dream" is inferior.

The problem with the maze analogy of context is that usually we see one option as right and the other as wrong. If you turn Left instead of Right in the maze you just get to a different place. In Inception if you take the scene to be "waking" when it is actually "dream" you doing more than just missing the context of the film, you are confusing imaginary things with real things that we take very very seriously in reality.

This was madness and psychosis lies however. There are mental states where we are confused over reality, which can be caused by all manner of things, but in powerful cases they are the accumulation of "incorrect" thoughts that ultimately lead not just to confusion but underlying chemical and neuronal "incorrectness." If we keep making the wrong moves in the maze of meaning we will end up far away from every one else, and getting back can be a long and difficult journey.

Now that was supposed to be a short post, but has actually got to a point in my mental maze that has long interested me. Suppose we do end up on a desert island and we follow our own maze for many years without contact with other people. When we do meet other people they are likely to say we are "mad" because we are in such a different place. But does being "mad" just mean we are in a different part of the maze to other people, or like above is it in some way "really" inferior.

To my mind the ultimate test is "harm." We are in the wrong part of the maze if we start to do "harm". "Harm" by definition is undesirable. But it is complex. Some people think that war is desirable, in other words incredible harm can be viewed as beneficial. I think these people have collectively gone into the wrong part of the maze... there are a lot of them. I always argue that a part of the maze A thinks that another part of the maze B should be bombed, the ultimate test is whether A accepts if B bombs them. If Japan had had the atomic bomb would the US have welcomed Japan bombing them? The answer is No under any circumstances. And so it follows that Japan would not have accepted the bomb under any circumstances. It means that dropping the bomb was entirely the choice of America and had no value outside America's part of the maze.

In conclusion the idea that everything is just a part of the maze, and madness is just people looking at each other intolerantly from far across the maze is wrong. The reason is similar to the paradox problems in logic. If we say that everything and every point of view and every lifestyle is just a point in the maze, then where in the maze is that point of view? And if it is just a part of the maze, then other parts of the maze represent not this point of view. In other words once you put this blog entry down and walk away from it into another part of the maze, then you will also lose the maze point of view. Such a point of view means that for almost all contexts this maze analogy is not relevant. It only works when you have walked the particular path written down here.

Once you 100% relativise and bind things into context, you defeat yourself. This is Godel Paradox, Russel Paradox and my SRH. You can't be that self referential.

So the maze is a great analogy but it cannot fit 100%. There is life outside context. And madness is more than just a different type of sanity. we do need look after ourselves, and we do need to learn wise ways to walk the maze as not all places are the same. But this is not to support the dogmatic and the conservative, the laws are subtle and forcing people to stay in "safe" parts of the maze is itself just a point of view.