I was just reading about the Spanish Inquisition. In the context of pushing out the Muslim invasion, the Spanish really did have to undertake an inquisition to figure out whose side people were really on. There was a genuine threat of resurgence otherwise. Something like this seems to be playing out at a moralistic level today, as you point out in your excellent work, with various factions of the population standing to win or lose depending on outcome of this 'battle'.
Thanks, Brett. A good start on an essential set of issues. You got my mind and imagination working.
I would add, we need "Frame mappers" -- folks who can identify various frames of reference with some consistency of criteria. Maps only work because those who make and read them agree on some key definitions, e.g. a kilometer or mile, how many inches in a mile, the differences among a river, a pond, a lake, a creek and a house, a tent, a hut, etc.. As things stand today we have no agreed upon, cross-cultural criteria to apply to the key elements of various frames of reference. A major reason this topic is so murky and muddle-headed.
I also see the need for "Frame transcenders" -- folks who can see and distinguish among the different levels of generality at which different frames of reference function, e.g. we have ways different frames of reference for reality and also for different styles of thinking, but these function at different levels of generality. Confusion results when this is not understood and noticed.
Fine work and always happy to see Kuhn brought up in a discussion of paradigms. Your insight, to me at least, speaks to the absolutist or dogmatic posture versus the perspectivist or multi-faceted approach and it's always refreshing to see it expressed in whatever forms it may be such as your "frame applier" or "frame examiner".
My only issue with this line of thought in general is that even the "frame examiner" rests upon assumptions of value, coherence, and so on, so there is little reason to prefer an absolutist versus a perspectivist in terms of who is "correct" or "must be punished" (or else you fall into your own criticism). Rather it boils down to our own form of life and the reactions we may have whether from predisposition or learned behavior; your "visceral unease" is itself a sort of applied frame in that you feel no one should have, "Truth with a capital T" but such problems are to be expected with any commitment, as I just mentioned, it's impossible to escape assumptions (in this case the argument that capital T "Truth" is not possible / attainable, which itself is an absolute truth claim) at some point in the process. Granted you can wave this away by saying that they don't have what they believe they possess which is more than fair, the thorny concept itself remains, however.
Really interesting (as always!). It’s hard to comment appropriately on this kind of thing without getting sucked into years of research! Personally, for instance, I like Ben Shapiro, although I can certainly see what you mean about him being a frame-applier (but I can’t envision any circumstances in which he could be an “existential threat”).
The article made me think about a couple of things: one of them is the whole “Trump phenomenon” - which I think will be a vast area for commentary for a long time to come, and by which phrase I include not just the character of the man himself, and his economic and international-political effects, but the whole surrounding cultural insanity (not just hyper-enthusiasm for Trump even when he says things that are just silly or dangerous, but also the complete insanity of the Democrat supporters on the media which led to the upswelling of common-sense down-to-earth real-life working-class etc people for the only sufficiently meaningful political alternative. Although the useless inarticulacy of Kamala Harris surely had to be a contributory factor too.).
The other thing I thought of was the rather weak and desperate need of most humans for frames, as shown by religions among other things, of course. There is something of a movement among the young in the UK to going back to Church, bit of a fad at present, and of course spread by “social media” and smartphones, those popular substitutes for thought and research, which did them such favours with, say, transgender ideology. Trouble is, get them young and you’ve frequently got them forever; I’ll never get over having had endless conversations with a fundamentalist about what was revealed by literary analysis and psychology, because this was an intelligent guy with a technical qualification, and yet he took seriously and literally a clearly symbolic miracle story, or the reports of dialogue by John the Baptist and by Pilate, as if they had been recorded and transcribed rather than “interpretations” or “required applications of prophecy or parable”. (I had to back off in the end as I felt his frame starting to buckle and clearly it would have meant too much to him for the wave function of his belief system to collapse into realism. I had been trying to be clever and rational, rather than unkind.) I loved Ruben Nelson’s comment about “frame mappers” and “frame transcenders”. Maybe there is some whole new academic field potentially opening up here. As long as it doesn’t just become another frame or get warped into any more post-modernist neo-Marxist claptrap by “academics” who think they get it.
I'm not being entirely anti-religion by the way. I understand simple needs for social cohesion. I just think that it seems probable to me that the source of consciousness and intelligence in the entirety of this vast universe was not hanging around talking to wandering desert prophets or psychologically anguished Jews. And "its" "ideas" on morality would be transcendentally incomprehensible for primates struck down by tragedy. I just imagine any new consciousness-based ideas for a future religion would come out of the ideas of people like Dr Michael Levin, or observations of the Great Attractor sucking in galaxies, and couldn't be the cosy comfort of your own pet angel who "loves" you. You're "loved" in the sense of being existent rather than non-existent, not in the sense of being protected, "saved", lucky, or having a place to go to "after death". I think. But maybe I'm just applying another frame...?
I am glad you added the caveat at the end. I tend to be sympathetic to both sides. But I read you because I am a former Christian, now dissatisfied atheist. I see a need for a new worldview neither Christian nor atheist.
I was just reading about the Spanish Inquisition. In the context of pushing out the Muslim invasion, the Spanish really did have to undertake an inquisition to figure out whose side people were really on. There was a genuine threat of resurgence otherwise. Something like this seems to be playing out at a moralistic level today, as you point out in your excellent work, with various factions of the population standing to win or lose depending on outcome of this 'battle'.
Thanks, Brett. A good start on an essential set of issues. You got my mind and imagination working.
I would add, we need "Frame mappers" -- folks who can identify various frames of reference with some consistency of criteria. Maps only work because those who make and read them agree on some key definitions, e.g. a kilometer or mile, how many inches in a mile, the differences among a river, a pond, a lake, a creek and a house, a tent, a hut, etc.. As things stand today we have no agreed upon, cross-cultural criteria to apply to the key elements of various frames of reference. A major reason this topic is so murky and muddle-headed.
I also see the need for "Frame transcenders" -- folks who can see and distinguish among the different levels of generality at which different frames of reference function, e.g. we have ways different frames of reference for reality and also for different styles of thinking, but these function at different levels of generality. Confusion results when this is not understood and noticed.
Just a thought or two. Again, thank you.
Fine work and always happy to see Kuhn brought up in a discussion of paradigms. Your insight, to me at least, speaks to the absolutist or dogmatic posture versus the perspectivist or multi-faceted approach and it's always refreshing to see it expressed in whatever forms it may be such as your "frame applier" or "frame examiner".
My only issue with this line of thought in general is that even the "frame examiner" rests upon assumptions of value, coherence, and so on, so there is little reason to prefer an absolutist versus a perspectivist in terms of who is "correct" or "must be punished" (or else you fall into your own criticism). Rather it boils down to our own form of life and the reactions we may have whether from predisposition or learned behavior; your "visceral unease" is itself a sort of applied frame in that you feel no one should have, "Truth with a capital T" but such problems are to be expected with any commitment, as I just mentioned, it's impossible to escape assumptions (in this case the argument that capital T "Truth" is not possible / attainable, which itself is an absolute truth claim) at some point in the process. Granted you can wave this away by saying that they don't have what they believe they possess which is more than fair, the thorny concept itself remains, however.
Again, a nice enjoyable read so thank you.
Really interesting (as always!). It’s hard to comment appropriately on this kind of thing without getting sucked into years of research! Personally, for instance, I like Ben Shapiro, although I can certainly see what you mean about him being a frame-applier (but I can’t envision any circumstances in which he could be an “existential threat”).
The article made me think about a couple of things: one of them is the whole “Trump phenomenon” - which I think will be a vast area for commentary for a long time to come, and by which phrase I include not just the character of the man himself, and his economic and international-political effects, but the whole surrounding cultural insanity (not just hyper-enthusiasm for Trump even when he says things that are just silly or dangerous, but also the complete insanity of the Democrat supporters on the media which led to the upswelling of common-sense down-to-earth real-life working-class etc people for the only sufficiently meaningful political alternative. Although the useless inarticulacy of Kamala Harris surely had to be a contributory factor too.).
The other thing I thought of was the rather weak and desperate need of most humans for frames, as shown by religions among other things, of course. There is something of a movement among the young in the UK to going back to Church, bit of a fad at present, and of course spread by “social media” and smartphones, those popular substitutes for thought and research, which did them such favours with, say, transgender ideology. Trouble is, get them young and you’ve frequently got them forever; I’ll never get over having had endless conversations with a fundamentalist about what was revealed by literary analysis and psychology, because this was an intelligent guy with a technical qualification, and yet he took seriously and literally a clearly symbolic miracle story, or the reports of dialogue by John the Baptist and by Pilate, as if they had been recorded and transcribed rather than “interpretations” or “required applications of prophecy or parable”. (I had to back off in the end as I felt his frame starting to buckle and clearly it would have meant too much to him for the wave function of his belief system to collapse into realism. I had been trying to be clever and rational, rather than unkind.) I loved Ruben Nelson’s comment about “frame mappers” and “frame transcenders”. Maybe there is some whole new academic field potentially opening up here. As long as it doesn’t just become another frame or get warped into any more post-modernist neo-Marxist claptrap by “academics” who think they get it.
I'm not being entirely anti-religion by the way. I understand simple needs for social cohesion. I just think that it seems probable to me that the source of consciousness and intelligence in the entirety of this vast universe was not hanging around talking to wandering desert prophets or psychologically anguished Jews. And "its" "ideas" on morality would be transcendentally incomprehensible for primates struck down by tragedy. I just imagine any new consciousness-based ideas for a future religion would come out of the ideas of people like Dr Michael Levin, or observations of the Great Attractor sucking in galaxies, and couldn't be the cosy comfort of your own pet angel who "loves" you. You're "loved" in the sense of being existent rather than non-existent, not in the sense of being protected, "saved", lucky, or having a place to go to "after death". I think. But maybe I'm just applying another frame...?
I am glad you added the caveat at the end. I tend to be sympathetic to both sides. But I read you because I am a former Christian, now dissatisfied atheist. I see a need for a new worldview neither Christian nor atheist.
❤️🔥☦️❤️🔥