As I said... It's futile to converse with you.
And as I noted you don't seem to have conversations. You make declarations, like your high context bits and when asked something as fundamental as, "What's your source for using those terms" duck and cover declare some more and now you're block quoting with dismissal.
About what I expected, but it was worth trying to see if there was anything under all that verbal posturing.
Such is life. :e4e:
Here's an example of what I'm speaking to:
...As for high- versus low- context, I haven't addressed your posts because all you've referred to is Hall's anthropological works that are so prolific.
Then flesh out my reading by noting what source/context you're using.
I asked you for your source material to see where you're getting your understanding from. Your terms needed a context given you weren't inclined to explain them, only use them like punctuation. Given you ducked that request repeatedly (and still are) continuing to use the jargon like some sort of authority in the mist... If I speak to and of a definition or a study gives me a particular point I cite it and/or reference it so we can speak meaningfully if you're unaware of it.
That's what anyone does who is confident in his foundation and understanding.
You don't do that. And it's reasonable to suspect that you either lack confidence in it or in your grasp of it and leaving it in that mist protects you and/or it from scrutiny. So for all I know you're simply abusing Hall's work like someone with a decent vocabulary and a survey course under their belt might or your source material isn't peer reviewed and established in its validity.
There are other facets, and you don't really want to understand.
Yes, because that's what people who ask you for reading material and source authority are...disinterested.
lain:
If we spent a nice two-hours over lunch and discussed these topics, you'd end up doe-eyed and mind-blown with illumination of all I'm referring to on a very general level.
I concede your glowing self estimation.
...The greatest device of the enemy is language.
Language is a context. Anyone who speaks more than one language understands that words can and do, to some extent, shape our understanding of both concept and experience.
And whether you refer to it linguistically as high-context or in Hall's inversion of referring to English as low-context,
Inversion in relation to what contrary or differing authority established by what, again?
Come on down to the coffee shop for a bit. You'll be reeling in no time.
Go plant a fig tree to sit under if it pleases you. But neither that nor the willingness/hubris to declare or infer it will actually make you the Buddha in any particular form or fashion.