Context/Subtext and IMs

[Wynch]

I was pondering today whether or not context and subtext were related directly to certain information elements and if so, which elements specifically. Just to quickly clarify what I mean by context and subtext:

Context: The circumstantial meaning given to something. For instance, in language we have a series of words with definitions, some with more than one definition. It's often important to understand the contextual layers of something in order to understand the meaning of a word in a sentence.

Subtext: The inherent meaning of something, sometimes not obvious, but still there if you look for it. A sort of reading between the lines. For example in my french class today students had a problem with the phrase "Les lapins mangent la nuit" which translates literally to "Rabbits eat night". Now in non-poetic language one should be able to reason that rabbits can't eat night. However, if you know that people tend to drop out sounds in language out of laziness and convenience and you realize that night is related to a time, it becomes obvious that this sentence is simply missing a preposition: "Les lapins mangent à la nuit" - "Rabbits eat at night".

ANYWAYS

This got me thinking about the differences between the implicit and explicit. I've always thought of my understanding of context and subtext as related to Ne/Ni (in contrast to Se/Si who would disregard context/subtext and focus on the a more immediate/literal connotation). However, there is admittedly the possibility that context/subtext is more related to more of a T/F axis.

I don't want to go into detail on my own scattered thoughts on this subject, mostly I was curious about the input of others.

What do you think about context/subtext? Is it related to N/S? T/F? Nothing? Everything? Something entirely different?

[Brentano]

"Lapins" is French slang for lesbians and "nuit" is slang for a black pussy.

[MatthewZ]

"Lapins" is French slang for lesbians and "nuit" is slang for a black pussy.

I find this an acceptable interpretation.

[Brentano]

subtext.

[Wynch]

Lovely, I make a relatively serious post for the first time in months and all I get is fucking garbage.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[MatthewZ]

Lovely, I make a relatively serious post for the first time in months and all I get is fucking garbage.

It was inevitable, really. Best content I could have given you was = context and = subtext, which merely agrees with the OP and doens't add much. tends towards seeking out alternative interpretations (that is, a changing context) and thus may need the context to gain the natural interpretation of the text. That's more of a personal anecdote than anything. I like context as it's perfectly reasonable to interpret that rabbits indeed do eat night without the context that it wasn't said in a poetic context.

, on the other hand, doesn't shift too much between possible interpretations, instead sticking with what is and expanding on it by looking at the significance of what is.

[Gilly]

Well I think context is inherently related to introverted functions. When something is perceived accurately as being in a "field," its relationships to other things in this "field" are assumed and certain things can be taken for granted, or go not fully stated and still be understood as implicit.

I would say that subtext is probably related to internal functions: things that are not directly or concretely observable, but are still "there."

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Brilliand]

I think context is inherently related to thinking... though with extraverted functions the context is automatically "this," whereas introverted functions may be spanning several things, using a sort of region as the context. With , that would be a category, though the word "category" may not fit so well for the other introverted elements.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Brilliand]

That bold is exactly how I see it. In the end, all what we talk about is only our mental representation about the functions/IEs, but we have to address them somehow .

Doesn't Fi use classifications as Ti as well? This is the case in my knowledge...

Yes, it's quite similar. I was hesitant to use "categories" for directly because what I think of as a category is a very thing. The classifications, being Internal in nature, would not satisfy a thinker looking for a category.

[strrrng]

I think context is mainly related to external field functions, and subtext to internal object functions, respectively. Where it differs, is obviously in Perceiving and Judging: the former assumes an external, encompassing context (Si), wherein the latent properties of recursively manifest things (Ne subtext) can be understood; the latter assumes contextual organization (Ti), and the implications of objective activity (Fe) are refined according to their explicit relations to each other.

What I abstract from how Ti/Fe and Si/Ne work, is that external field functions are eliminating mechanisms. This means that instead of carrying an implicit context (Ni and Fi), they work in negatives, determining relevancy by filtering out irrelevancy in the variations of internal object functions.

[xerx]

I think every function is capable of using both context and subtext since every function is a fully rational analysis of reality.

context = how well a system correlates with other systems that are present. Doesn't require understanding, just rote comparison.
subtext = what a system means in and of itself. Requires understanding the universal implications of a system.

Subtext and context can lead into each other.

Differentiating them sounds a bit silly to me, as if very basic cognitive processes distinctly correspond to different types of function.

"Lapins" is French slang for lesbians and "nuit" is slang for a black pussy.

Hey Bertrand, you strut around this place like you're Kant's equal but all you ever do is post offensive content and insult members.

[strrrng]

Differentiating them sounds a bit silly to me, as if very basic cognitive processes distinctly correspond to different types of function.

I think this goes without saying. The terms are just being used for conceptual analysis of functions, not actual definition.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request