Context is Illusion. Detail is key.

This post is in response to Peter Atencio's "Context is Key"
-------

First, let’s agree that specific details are key in understanding/ communicating a situation, especially if the alternative is communication through broad generalizations.

However, the original scenarios above, though lacking in detail, do have context: (soup and bagel, child in a Paris park). The context changes as details are added. The frame of context never ends.

Context is generally defined as the conditions in which something exists or occurs. And while conditions can (and do) add specific enlightening details, they are not the key to understanding a situation more truthfully - spoken or unspoken.

Often times, context inhibits truth. Take the contextual examples mentioned above: (German occupation, eating next to a stack of unpaid bills) - Instead of illuminating the truth, the characters or objects are misunderstood through a whole new set of predetermined perceptions. So, you show me a picture and I believe it to be serene. Then you provide a certain context and I find it horrific. Nothing has changed but my own preconceived notions of two separate contexts. The truth of the picture lies in how the characters and objects react to the conditions in which they exist.

“A man eats soup and a bagel for lunch.” - This sentence can be understood in as many different ways as there are people.

“A man eats canned soup and a hard leftover bagel next to unpaid bills.” - This sentence can also be understood in as many different ways as there are people. It absolutely does not promote unspoken truths, but it does reinforce the blissfully ignorant ways in which we stereotype our world.

Context is an illusion. Detail is key.

Much love, Peter. Your post has got me thinking.
----

Peter responds to this post here.