An excerpt from a series of reflections induced by a workshop about objects, contexts and a bout of fever

Contextualising objects and something more:
Please refer to fig 1

Are the number of variables we use to circumscribe the area in which we contextualise important?
Do they make any difference in the way we perceive an object or its shapes?
If instead of a triangle we had, for instance, an hexagon, would it be simpler or harder to contextualise?
Where does the relation between the area in which we contextualise and our perception of what we are contextualising lie?

Would we have been confused by the bigger area in which we contextualise or simply have had the possibility to effectively contextualise better, more loyally and completely?
Is it then just a matter of number of choices?
The narrower the number of choices, the less loyal representation of the actual perception of an object, a problem, anything?

A short definition:
Contextualising: from big to small
Generalising: from small to big

Speaking in a broad sense I felt uneasy in not being able to see a limit between contextualisation and generalisation. Where does one finish and the other starts?
Is there a fixed number of variables after which we start to generalise instead of contextualising?

Per Absurd

Contextualisation as Generalisation:
please refer to fig 2

This is tricky terrain.
Let's take, for instance, the good old triangle.
Your object, let's say a key, is going to be contextualised in it, thus in a precise area delimited by 3 variables.
Now please think about these 3 variables A, B, C and put your object in this context.
By doing so you are already narrowing the gap (or area if you prefer) in which your perception of the object is falling.
This idea works better I guess in big or generic contexts ( nevertheless still contexts), however, per Absurd, you could just keep on contextualising, focusing on smaller and smaller "qualities" and you will always find yourself generalising.
According to this theory: Wherever you have a contextualisation by default you have a generalisation as well, no matter what you are talking about.
Apparently there is always a margin of generalisation, for when you are contextualising you are already excluding a series of variables that in fact make your perception of the object.

If you would like to expand on the point during your tea break drop me a line through the contact page


fig 1 


fig 2