I'd like to exchange more on the question of framing and Lakoff's ideas, brought to my attention by a linguist friend in the 1990s, but my drafting rarely survives on this phone.
Let's say I'm in my 80s and started thinking about issues of framing at age 18...
Not yet political but, starting out from the frame, framing and optical devices …
I'd like to exchange more on the question of framing and Lakoff's ideas, brought to my attention by a linguist friend in the 1990s, but my drafting rarely survives on this phone.
Let's say I'm in my 80s and started thinking about issues of framing at age 18...
Not yet political but, starting out from the frame, framing and optical devices used by Renaissance painters to analyse the object they are viewing and moving on to the systematic use of framing in western art and science. In contrast, framing -- in the western sense -- is absent from Chinese, Korean and Japanese painting but present in, for instance, architecture.
I don't propose to say more just now, but the implications are not insignificant. For instance, when it comes to Lakoff's number 5...
Divorce between what lies within the frame and what lies outside it is a very western phenomenon. We speak of relevance and draw a hard border separating what is germane to our problem from what is not. Other cultures accord more important to context.
Help me if I'm wrong here, Peter, but in this context, the 'frame' is within people's neurological wiring, borne from years of repetitive communication, and is therefore a way to process future mental images. Are you with me on this idea .... So, an image comes in from anywhere - the TV let's say --> of a person of color and a caucasian and they are in a relationship (on the TV screen, and they're holding hands).
How anyone responds to any external stimuli could be understood from their frame ... of mind, or a frame of view. So, a conservative person from a principally white background may indeed have an understandably very different response from the frame of an urban dweller. We progressives have never created a universally understood frame, regarding government, economics or anything else
2. I was ill when writing, and that really doesn't help;
3. I'm better, but still recovering.
4. More to the point, everything I write gets disappeared.
5. Look up Georg Philipp Lichtenberg's aphorism on prejudices...
6. Most people seem to be almost permanently on automatic pilot. I used the term "solid-state" when referring to your presentation of Lakoff's invaluable tool, but the human brain (even that of so-called "conservatives") is rivalled in complexity only by the universe... and I am bound to be skeptical of anything that sounds like "hard-wiring" when referring to it.
7. Re. Lichtenberg, the "conservatives" in my family constitute a thought-free zone. It isn't hermetic enough, so some sensitive human beings suffer from anxiety...
8. Those to whom we are referring in general have a very very solid mindset, unchanging and unchanged unless shattered -- it can be brittle. Change and its breaknet acceleration cause suchlike to close the circle of their wagon train and lie in wait with their guns at the ready...
This is grounded in a totally false and delusive view of reality in which each individual is a radically discrete (i.e. separate) entity and... you could express this in the cartoon I received yesterday... One head that says "I think therefore I am", another that says "I believe therefore I am right..."
9. The free mind is more fluid, even gaseous... Dynamic, not confusing representations with what they represent but finding in them useful tools for analysing a situation. I suspect that one of the marks of what you'd call a genuine progressive, one who never ceases to explore his own mind, which may change throughout life, is the ability to distinguish what was written on water. His or her own master, aware and flexible, knowing shibboleths but free from them.
Not what a French poet called "bald on the inside of the head".
10. I'd have liked to get down to answering you more directly, but I trust Lakoffs toolbox more than some of his general theory about metaphor. Having said which, words are all representations.
Maybe take a look at David Abrams' The Spell of the Sensuous for a view of language-induced alienation.
11. If I could express my purpose in life simply but crudely, I might say to seek freedom from conditioning. And of course, I can frame myself as stupidly and thoughtlessly as anyone else, any day. But try not to corral my mind pointlessly.
12. There are ways of short-circuiting mental activity. They are precious.
We are talking practical psychology here, not -- as some lazy-minded commentators wrote -- "philosophy". An insult, one showing the same deep-seated ignorance, the same boneheaded unwillingness to examine one's own outlook, one's own solidified prejudices, as the obcurantism of the pseudo-conservative adversary.
We are talking practical tools, and that is why I proposed framing and assiduously studying the twelve points, day in, day out.
When people use tools (or weapons) they need to familiarize themselves with their use, and this involves training, above all, repetition and more repetition.
But the timing, delivery and dosage of messaging is important if it is not to be ignored.
In my daily life, I'm concerned personally with issues that concern language, especially the uses of metaphor, words, images, representations. The caricatural ways in which people take their prejudices for thinking, for all that they are not... Forget all those underpinnings, our concern here is with overcoming. Mental weapons drill. (Yet another metaphor...)
The image that's now arising in my mind comes from my memory of George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia: the anarchists of the P.O.U.M. marching out from Barcelona carrying weapons (when available) but refusing the supposed indignity of carrying shovels to dig themselves in...
Massacred, together with their manly pride, their dignity.
I'd like to exchange more on the question of framing and Lakoff's ideas, brought to my attention by a linguist friend in the 1990s, but my drafting rarely survives on this phone.
Let's say I'm in my 80s and started thinking about issues of framing at age 18...
Not yet political but, starting out from the frame, framing and optical devices used by Renaissance painters to analyse the object they are viewing and moving on to the systematic use of framing in western art and science. In contrast, framing -- in the western sense -- is absent from Chinese, Korean and Japanese painting but present in, for instance, architecture.
I don't propose to say more just now, but the implications are not insignificant. For instance, when it comes to Lakoff's number 5...
Divorce between what lies within the frame and what lies outside it is a very western phenomenon. We speak of relevance and draw a hard border separating what is germane to our problem from what is not. Other cultures accord more important to context.
Help me if I'm wrong here, Peter, but in this context, the 'frame' is within people's neurological wiring, borne from years of repetitive communication, and is therefore a way to process future mental images. Are you with me on this idea .... So, an image comes in from anywhere - the TV let's say --> of a person of color and a caucasian and they are in a relationship (on the TV screen, and they're holding hands).
How anyone responds to any external stimuli could be understood from their frame ... of mind, or a frame of view. So, a conservative person from a principally white background may indeed have an understandably very different response from the frame of an urban dweller. We progressives have never created a universally understood frame, regarding government, economics or anything else
I give up.
1. I am unable to retrace what I was writing;
2. I was ill when writing, and that really doesn't help;
3. I'm better, but still recovering.
4. More to the point, everything I write gets disappeared.
5. Look up Georg Philipp Lichtenberg's aphorism on prejudices...
6. Most people seem to be almost permanently on automatic pilot. I used the term "solid-state" when referring to your presentation of Lakoff's invaluable tool, but the human brain (even that of so-called "conservatives") is rivalled in complexity only by the universe... and I am bound to be skeptical of anything that sounds like "hard-wiring" when referring to it.
7. Re. Lichtenberg, the "conservatives" in my family constitute a thought-free zone. It isn't hermetic enough, so some sensitive human beings suffer from anxiety...
8. Those to whom we are referring in general have a very very solid mindset, unchanging and unchanged unless shattered -- it can be brittle. Change and its breaknet acceleration cause suchlike to close the circle of their wagon train and lie in wait with their guns at the ready...
This is grounded in a totally false and delusive view of reality in which each individual is a radically discrete (i.e. separate) entity and... you could express this in the cartoon I received yesterday... One head that says "I think therefore I am", another that says "I believe therefore I am right..."
9. The free mind is more fluid, even gaseous... Dynamic, not confusing representations with what they represent but finding in them useful tools for analysing a situation. I suspect that one of the marks of what you'd call a genuine progressive, one who never ceases to explore his own mind, which may change throughout life, is the ability to distinguish what was written on water. His or her own master, aware and flexible, knowing shibboleths but free from them.
Not what a French poet called "bald on the inside of the head".
10. I'd have liked to get down to answering you more directly, but I trust Lakoffs toolbox more than some of his general theory about metaphor. Having said which, words are all representations.
Maybe take a look at David Abrams' The Spell of the Sensuous for a view of language-induced alienation.
11. If I could express my purpose in life simply but crudely, I might say to seek freedom from conditioning. And of course, I can frame myself as stupidly and thoughtlessly as anyone else, any day. But try not to corral my mind pointlessly.
12. There are ways of short-circuiting mental activity. They are precious.
In practice, I am with you.
We are talking practical psychology here, not -- as some lazy-minded commentators wrote -- "philosophy". An insult, one showing the same deep-seated ignorance, the same boneheaded unwillingness to examine one's own outlook, one's own solidified prejudices, as the obcurantism of the pseudo-conservative adversary.
We are talking practical tools, and that is why I proposed framing and assiduously studying the twelve points, day in, day out.
When people use tools (or weapons) they need to familiarize themselves with their use, and this involves training, above all, repetition and more repetition.
But the timing, delivery and dosage of messaging is important if it is not to be ignored.
In my daily life, I'm concerned personally with issues that concern language, especially the uses of metaphor, words, images, representations. The caricatural ways in which people take their prejudices for thinking, for all that they are not... Forget all those underpinnings, our concern here is with overcoming. Mental weapons drill. (Yet another metaphor...)
The image that's now arising in my mind comes from my memory of George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia: the anarchists of the P.O.U.M. marching out from Barcelona carrying weapons (when available) but refusing the supposed indignity of carrying shovels to dig themselves in...
Massacred, together with their manly pride, their dignity.