Frames
Seems to me that everyone only has a handful of tricks. What I think of as frames, or scaffolding, which are like ways of organizing information. General principles. Things like that. With these frames in hand, we take desperate facts, and pieces of content, and furnish the principle, or frame. These frames also do something. They're oriented, or directed towards something. They aren't simply neutral ways of organizing information, but organize towards certain goals, or purposes. When someone is being honest about feelings, and intentions, then even if they're seemingly speaking in woo, or have the knowledge base of a toddler, we can, if we're paying attention, see something there.
Kind of like the secret, or law of attraction type shit. If you're goal-directed consciously, and not just dishonestly pushing the "correct frame" with no obvious point to you, besides being the right and good one, then the pieces start to fall into place by their own accord, and then what seemed like it was nicely demarcated into particular sets or categories all becomes mortar for the convenience of the frame.
I think that we spend a lot of time setting frames to battle, and it takes a lot of discipline attention and energy to get at someone else's frame. Because it isn't about any particular piece of information, and it's easy to see some fact, or info and think "oh, that goes here" immediately, then start disagreeing, but it's about the organization itself, and not the information per se.
Kind of like the secret, or law of attraction type shit. If you're goal-directed consciously, and not just dishonestly pushing the "correct frame" with no obvious point to you, besides being the right and good one, then the pieces start to fall into place by their own accord, and then what seemed like it was nicely demarcated into particular sets or categories all becomes mortar for the convenience of the frame.
I think that we spend a lot of time setting frames to battle, and it takes a lot of discipline attention and energy to get at someone else's frame. Because it isn't about any particular piece of information, and it's easy to see some fact, or info and think "oh, that goes here" immediately, then start disagreeing, but it's about the organization itself, and not the information per se.
Comments (45)
I think of rose tinted glasses as like dispositional attitudes towards things that we're seeing. I once saw a ted talk where buddy said that we all have road maps that take us to certain emotional places, so that optimists find the pathway to optimism, pessimists find the pathway to pessimism etc.
I thing that even further than that, frames organize the very details of what we're seeing, making somethings stand out, and others remain in the background, and the same information doing different work in our frames. Luckily for this, the glasses analogy still works, they just need to be thicker, which is what they call "goggles". Which is usually what niche fans call their vision which allows them to see their niche everywhere, like furry goggles let them see the ancient egyptians as furries!
That's true too. The "objective view", or the scientific view is an inherently unself-conscious one. It removes the first person, and renders everything in the third person. One is then, as you say, just the narrator of the truth, type deal. It isn't about you. It's just the ways things are.
How radical is the alterity? I think that it's possible to occupy the same frame, and perception itself will fall in line. Though, since it can never be literally checked... it may always rely on some fairy dust and happy thoughts. :)
To add...these frames aren't static and lifeless. They evolve with the content you put into them. Fixing, flexing, metamorphosing...
$$$
Out of curiosity, can you expand some on dat?
What one honestly feels is in itself uncertain and continously evolving. Even as some speaks, something else may immediately come to mind. Ditto for intentions. What are my intentions?
Be that as it may, Shakespeare provides some reasonable advice:
"This above all, to thine own self be true."
However, this at times may require someone to quit their job or profession or career, which is not that uncommon.
It's not clear or obvious, especially when just contemplating, or talking, which I'll polarize for my purposes. Contemplation in my view is to wonder, to take apart, to dismantle certainties. Yapping on the other hand lends itself to entrenchment. We feed off of other people's feelings, and beliefs, so that when we wish to persuade someone, or we are questioned about something, we immediately dig our heels in, and over-state our cases. It's both a degree of competitiveness, but also if we take them too seriously, than their doubt is our doubt, they're the alter-ego, the contrarian. Just as dangerously, if not more dangerously, we latch on to agreement, praise, and things like that and become more and more certain the more faith and support that we can garner. Your persuasion is my persuasion. All of this muddies the shit out of the water, and we get lost among the crowd to ourselves.
Mindfulness, and attention I think is the cure. What is your true feelings, and views? You can't just look inside yourself and find out, you'll just see all of the talk, the doubt and confidence of your interactions, and your head is full of other people's voices. You gotta watch yourself, and see how you behave, what you do, and then pivotal moments will arise where you'll seemingly do something, or feel some way, and it will be counter to your idealization, or your deprecations, and you need to not dismiss it in favor of pre-conception.
We judge, and know what is judged, and in favor of what, and we either wish to excuse ourselves, or take more responsibility than what is due, and you have to basically be detached, and go with your first impression, and not your reaction to it.
That's what I think. It's difficult to hold on to stuff, and difficult to not entirely be consumed by, or become the various emotions and thoughts that arise. Like one hand washing the other, you always have to be the one watching the actions, watching the thoughts, watching the feelings.
That's what I did... and looking for a job and suffering for it, but I got some distance away from my mom, and got rid of my little sister. She was also trying to dump my little brother one me too. I couldn't even go home, I was breaking, and needed to gtf out of dere. I miss having money, lol, but other than that I'm calmed down a whole lot. Need to get my shit together by 40, or I probably never will...
I don't know if it's a cure but it's certainly is a good practice.
Why is it a good practice?
I think it's as you said: seeing the same frame. With the average statement, there aren't too many different interpretations (somewhere around 5 in some cases). Couldn't rule out a case where there are two different interpretations in play, but it never comes to light for either party. I just don't know of any cases of that. Seems like I'd know about if it happened very often.
Why is metacognition a benefit? I'm not just continually asking these questions... but the point is that you are eventually going to have to say for no real benefit at all, or because it improves your health or well being in some sense. You can dispute the gravity, and completeness of the term "cure", but you'll still end up somewhere close to remedy. What other reason could there be for it?
If I scan the room looking for my keys, I look at it one way; if I'm deciding where to set up Catan to play with my kids, I look at it another way. If those are frames, I create, I dunno, hundreds of them every day.
I was thinking of them as more general principles, that one sees everything in relation to. One surely can be play, and maybe another one serious business, and one can come up with hundreds of things in relation to those, but not hundreds of entirely different modes, or frames within which one operates and sees everything in relation to. Even deeper than that, there is a purpose of play, and a goal of play, just like your serious business.
Just think about people posting here, don't you notice like the same general theme over and over and over again? Seems like everyone I talk to, and everyone I read does this too. Maybe I'm just superficial, rather than deep, and there is a lot more to people then just the few things I hear them talk about, but I also notice in myself that I'll get captured, or occupied with some theme, and then start to piece together the world around it. Every time I get out, they just pull me back in!
I have this thing, where I notice that people often say pretty much the same shit for years and years... I worry that I'ma start doing that, but I like to change things up. I like to believe that what I say now, although many of the specific pieces are older than the hills, are different things, from an entirely different perspective than years ago. I'd like to believe that I can keep that up, and keep moving around.
I find that for many a peep, once you'd heard or read them enough, you feel like you get the gist of where they're coming from, and see that they only really have like half a dozen ordering principles by which they interpret information, and they're steady over time, even if they say different stuff. Their bag of tricks.
That's really plausible, absolutely.
When I posted, I almost said "hundreds, or even thousands" but didn't, and then afterward it occurred to me I was really talking about something like attention. So now I'm tempted to say "millions".
I guess I'm just resisting the idea of cognitive habits hardening into worldviews because I'm feeling skeptical about conceptual schemes these days.
But I see a way of putting our ideas together: attention can flicker, different ways of looking at things are always offering themselves to you; some of that you filter out just to stay functional, or to carry through on your intentions.
But if you actively tamp down other ways of looking at things when you don't have to, that's what makes you dogmatic. It's not that your theory makes it impossible to see certain things; it's that you make an effort not to, that you insist on sticking to one way of looking.
I studied a book about that general idea back in the day, in Philosophy of Science - 'The Structure of Scientific Revolution' by Thomas Kuhn. But the lecturer said that in many ways Kuhn was simply building on Michael Polanyi, who had come up with the idea of 'tacit knowledge' or 'implicit knowledge'.
Quoting Wosret
That's 'the lab coat of authority'. The 'new atheist' types are big on that.
Quoting Wosret
I've been doing that, since 2009, when I first started posting, but I have learned quite a bit along the way, and the substance changes over time.
Well, I wouldn't want to just think that everything I see is the same things as what I've already seen and know... that doesn't lend itself to learning much that's knew. I think that's what you're doing here.
I don't understand.
This is a good example, see I would say that phronesis sounds like the same thing as "tacit knowledge", as I've read about both of those things, and they sound similar to me. When I talk of frames, or when I talk about something about me, then I kind of piece a picture together to point at it, but there is a lot of "kinda" involved, because it is never quite representative of the thing. Like painting a picture is never precisely the same as the scenery, but comparing pictures I've seen, and copies, or ones done in different mediums doesn't suffer thing problem, they can look the same to me. When it comes to places I've been, or things I can do, the explanation, or representation can never be mistaken for the real thing. When dealing in symbols, and ideas, this gets lost I think.
It's like the difference between crystallized and fluid thinking. Fluid thinking operatives in the unknown, and crystallized in the known. The latter is more just memory, and as we age we lose the former more and more. Everything just becomes that which has come before. We begin to know everything, unfortunately.
I suppose that I prefer practice over cure because it's something that must be continually practiced.
I figured that it was just semantics. Didn't mean to overstate the case. You're right, the moment you get complacent, it gets you!
Yeah, that's interesting. I think I was imagining something like crystals constantly forming and falling away, or a crystal that constantly morphs into new shapes.
It's tempting to think that repetition could lead to a shape locking in, or at least making it harder for it to change shape.
The frames you speak of are dynamic and interact with the content you put into it. One may start off with the principle that ''love is good'' and then fit into this frame facts about the world. These contents will reinforce and consolidate the frame. However, any fact that's contrary (an exception) will force you to alter the frame...transforming it into something better (hopefully).
Kind of from left field. I never suggested or hinted at a complete lack of frames... just hoping not to get too wed to any particular ones, and just seeing everything through them forever and ever until the end of time. I like the idea that I can move around, without getting stuck, not that I can jump without any ground.
1) your post made me think of my favorite experimental rock record:
Which I think might be no small coincidence. But,
2) as to your philosophical concept, the metaphor of the frame is personally very appealing, but after awhile, it seems to get a little stale? At some points it seems like the metaphor might benefit by changing to some other shape? Or maybe not...the frame, after all, is the very concept in which the picture is formed...as Mike Vennart from Oceansize, above, says: "I am not the picture, now...I'm the frame". I, the one who creates such a frame within which to hold beliefs, am that very frame. Seems to hold.
I do like the imagery a lot, but I was thinking of a frame like a scaffolding (mentioned both in the OP), like the beginning outline of a structure. Carpentry imagery. For I'm a builder of worlds.
I build worlds too. I think we're pretty similar. It's just that we're individuals, so we're not allowed to agree on much, supposedly. I actually agree with you pretty much all the way. I was just mentioning how I perceived your idea, which was different than your own conception of it.
I didn't mean to come off as like disagreeable, but only explain that I never even thought of a picture frame, which really adds rather than subtracts from the imagery. Not really contrary, just complimentary.
I know that we're all world builders. I do love me some music, I didn't listen to what you linked, but I will now.
No problem at all; trust me, a thin-skinned dude like me has learned to develop a much thicker skin when dealing with ideas here. I was merely answering in typical kind. Glad you find my ideas complimentary. I literally was just basing my thoughts off of that Oceansize album, which has been a profoundly influential album on me as an artist and person. I thought the similarities were too serendipitous to ignore. Call me a philosophical dilettante; I'll take it in stride.
Quoting Wosret
Oh, are we? :P
Quoting Wosret
Prepare to either be bored out of you mind, or sucked inextricably into my Scorpio world...
I didn't realize that it was a whole album. Are there a couple choice songs off it for like an introduction? I am more of a song liker than band liker.
...Nah dude. The first four songs on that record are your best bet. If those first four don't suck you into hearing the entire record, then I guess you've done your due diligence, because the last track is the best of all. So, you only get that experience if you have the patience to hear the whole thing...damn, sorry that sounds so pretentious...just approach it as a philosopher, not as a music lover...or not...?
the truth is, this album, titled "Frames" has had a profound influence on me, more so than most philosophy...so, that's really the reason I felt the need to comment here at all...perhaps its better to just move on...
Alright, I'll give it a go. I was just wondering, because it's different to how I usually take things in is all.
Cool. I mean, the wonderful thing about music is, you might hate this record, but that doesn't affect my assessment of you as a forum member, or the music. That's why I tried to downplay it just now; for me personally, this record has been profound, and that's why I posted. But hey, you may decide that I'm out of my mind, and you may decide this record sucks, after listening to it. And that's fine, and that would be a valid response.
No pressure eh? Lol. Well, I post for my own benefit, because I feel the need to put thoughts into garbled misspelled words, lol.
I have a hell of a lot of nervous energy, and need like multiple distractions going at once, and never commit to much for long. Most of all I like lyrics, and words, and songs I like have one important similarity, the singing is always very clear, and easily made out. I'm not a huge appreciator of the music itself, and never listen to instrumentals, and prefer to just fast paced stuff, to match my excitable disposition.
Mostly though, it's a really topical album and political album, seemingly about 9/11, and the preceeding wars in the middle east...
None at all. I can't make anyone magically appreciate great art. Take that on a philosophical level, not a personal level.
Quoting Wosret
Well, same here, other than I'm a bit more of a spell check freak.
Quoting Wosret
Man, again, if you'll notice, I'm the same. I tend to go on posting sprees here. I'll post for a few days, and then run out of philosophical energy. The thing that keeps me going is the general impulse that the analytical bent is fundamentally flawed...
Quoting Wosret
Ah. Oceansize is probably not for you, then. Cheers to you, though, for being philosophical and giving it a try! Maybe you would like Sigur Ros? That's another band I really like that has very clear (nonsensical) lyrics that create a very specific feeling. You might like it, or not. Check out their "Untitled" album, or instead, for something way less depressing, their album "Takk...".
Quoting Wosret
Maybe you would like Sufjan Stevens newest album "Carrie and Lowell"? The lyrics carry that record in a really profound way. Damn, the words on that record are intense.
Quoting Wosret
Oh, no, Frames by Oceansize is not at all about 9/11. That's a common misconception about it.
That first song is about cashing in on 9/11 topicality, the thing they're doing with the song ironically, as I doubt that the album is being given away. The second was about war, and turning a blind eye, or not opposing it.
Many posts I write, particularly about me because I need to get those thoughts out of me, and due to some level of disgust, I'm not likely to even look at them again, and often don't look at posts I've written until sometime later anyway, to see how horrible and garbled they are. I used to be a lot more meticulous, but got lazy. My brain is like a rhyming dictionary, and doesn't seem to store articles or prepositions properly, and without going back and fixing them they are usually all messed up, and words that rhyme with the one I intended are often there instead.
I don't know if I gots an ax to grind, it's more that I'm deeply isolated, and need some level of human contact, and I've been hanging around this little group for like a decade, and feel like I know many people that come here, so it's like my source of human connection, or community...
I'm super boring and "typical" in my tastes, I tend to like pop, or what is popular and widely appreciated for the most part, yet see myself as totally existing on the fringes for some reason... lol. Never been very hip, or with it.