seems like frame-as-manipulation recapitulates the post-modern argument against master narratives, that there are always power dynamics embedded in how we construct our knowledge of the world.
i agree framing is inevitable; we have to order our perceptions of the world *somehow*. accepting that there can be multiple valid frames at the same time has been a big help for me, though it can be a slippery slope towards accepting a uselessly large number of frames.
i'm curious how you're relating one's frames to one's principles when you write about defecting and self-preservation. i assume one's frame carries with it one's principles but i am not 100% sure what you mean.
Yeah it's hard to say frame control isn't about power.
Good point about large number of frames. I think holding one frame over many is important. But you still need to leave the door open for critique and be willing to inhabit other frames that you didn't choose.
About frames, defection, and self-preservation. I'm still trying to get that into focus for myself. I think foundational beliefs should also come with skin in the game. If you're not willing to die for a belief, it's hard to know how much you believe it. You can have a set of principles that you're willing to sacrifice for. But you don't know which principles are truly foundational until you push them to the edge. At someone's limit is where you know if they believe in rational self-preservation or in something beyond themselves.
Thanks for answering, I failed to see the distinction between one’s frame and the purported principles behind the frame - for example, believing in the principle of individualism can be behind frames that condemn abortion or support trans youth. you can to dig deeper to see what people’s narratives actually rest on.
seems like frame-as-manipulation recapitulates the post-modern argument against master narratives, that there are always power dynamics embedded in how we construct our knowledge of the world.
i agree framing is inevitable; we have to order our perceptions of the world *somehow*. accepting that there can be multiple valid frames at the same time has been a big help for me, though it can be a slippery slope towards accepting a uselessly large number of frames.
i'm curious how you're relating one's frames to one's principles when you write about defecting and self-preservation. i assume one's frame carries with it one's principles but i am not 100% sure what you mean.
Yeah it's hard to say frame control isn't about power.
Good point about large number of frames. I think holding one frame over many is important. But you still need to leave the door open for critique and be willing to inhabit other frames that you didn't choose.
About frames, defection, and self-preservation. I'm still trying to get that into focus for myself. I think foundational beliefs should also come with skin in the game. If you're not willing to die for a belief, it's hard to know how much you believe it. You can have a set of principles that you're willing to sacrifice for. But you don't know which principles are truly foundational until you push them to the edge. At someone's limit is where you know if they believe in rational self-preservation or in something beyond themselves.
Ah cool I agree totally.
Thanks for answering, I failed to see the distinction between one’s frame and the purported principles behind the frame - for example, believing in the principle of individualism can be behind frames that condemn abortion or support trans youth. you can to dig deeper to see what people’s narratives actually rest on.