![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Context
I haven't been paying too much attention to a lot of posts recently. For one reason or another my time has been spent on other pursuits. I have taken to skim-reading posts and just going into detail on those that catch my eye. It's nothing personal, I daresay I'm doing nothing that most of you don't do from time to time.
The downside of approaching LJ in this manner is that sometimes something happens and I miss it, so another entry crops up and I have no immediate context. This can be annoying, but it is generally easily rectified by a quick bit of delving through the relevant journals.
What is interesting, though and very illuminating, is how sometimes the lack of context highlights character. When you have the context it is easy to see why someone reacts the way they do, why they say the things they say and so on. Context is the paper on which we write and from which we read and it allows us to explain behaviour, see reasons and forgive transgressions. In doing this we mask the essential nature lurking behind the persona of the writer. This person is reacting thus because of this, and has said X because Y happened.
Context is a double-edged tool with which we chisel and polish the personality of the writer and imbue it with our own perceptions. Strip out the context and we see in sharp relief highlighted aspects the essential person. No mask.
It's quite instructive. I am beginning to see some of my friends in quite a new light.
The downside of approaching LJ in this manner is that sometimes something happens and I miss it, so another entry crops up and I have no immediate context. This can be annoying, but it is generally easily rectified by a quick bit of delving through the relevant journals.
What is interesting, though and very illuminating, is how sometimes the lack of context highlights character. When you have the context it is easy to see why someone reacts the way they do, why they say the things they say and so on. Context is the paper on which we write and from which we read and it allows us to explain behaviour, see reasons and forgive transgressions. In doing this we mask the essential nature lurking behind the persona of the writer. This person is reacting thus because of this, and has said X because Y happened.
Context is a double-edged tool with which we chisel and polish the personality of the writer and imbue it with our own perceptions. Strip out the context and we see in sharp relief highlighted aspects the essential person. No mask.
It's quite instructive. I am beginning to see some of my friends in quite a new light.
Re: A poor way to communicate
However, and I stress this, I think this is a choice. If I wish, I can involve the source and this will affect my response in yet another way, again via me. I can have a pure self-indulgent experience, or with my Sherlock head on, I can explore and delve and find out something about that person who created it.
Choosing not to include the source isn't possible of course entirely, as the simplest thing may give you a strong message about them. But that in itself is interesting. And here we come to the point about writing: people aren't that complex or madly variable really, and the simplest thing can reveal much about them. So just a line, out of context, or a dab of paint just there, can by-pass all filters and tell you much.
I still prefer not to know though.