To contextualize an invocation is to place its meaning more within deeper levels of consideration regarding context. For example, we can refer to an entity as an “apple” and make assumptions that the context of the word’s use will be sufficient to convey meaning adequately to one’s interlocutor(s). A phrase such as “you are the apple of my eye” or “stop being such a wise apple” or “the apple does not fall far from the tree” use the same word, each with distinctive meanings. These distinctions are caused by context, and to observe or explore that fact is very basic contextualization. However, even in such simple cases, different people or situations can confuse the speaker’s intended meaning, as for example, when Person A takes “stop being such a wise apple” as a friendly and ironic way of being complimented for hers intelligence, while Person B takes the same comment as a scolding for being a “know-it-all.” Thus, mutual pre-ordained contextualization cannot be taken for granted in a feelings-critical conversation. This realization is the basis of an understanding of intercontextuality, and can be helpfully included in explorations of intersubjectivity, not to mention conversational conflict.

Each of us speaks from hers own experiential, conceptual, psychological and semantic context. A conversation with another person is an invitation to look out, at a minimum, from one’s own little realm and notice a neighboring realm, with its own experiential, mental, psychological and semantic components. There is a natural impulse within the damaged and guarded human soul to cling to the known. To cling to the known is to ignore the unknown, and ignore is the root of ignor-ance.

When this happens on an ethnic, political, cultural or national scale, the result is often a bloody war. It’s a distinction of extent, not essence.