FRAMES OF REFERENCE:
WISDOM AS PROCESS
AdamBlatner

July 11, 2005

---

I don't think we're going to get to the truth, so the following, in a sense, is a critique that's influenced by a mild "postmodernist" philosophy. (I write about this philosophy elsewhere on this website.) Whenever we think we have, the situation changes! New technologies emerge, new developments from other fields require re-evaluation in light of these new findings. Perspectives enlarge and new perspectives we hadn't anticipated enter the picture. What may have seemed true a year or a week ago may become less so today. Some truths just drift into irrelevance or triviality with maturity, new life challenges, or changing environmental circumstances.

Truth should also be recognized as an idea that expresses an underlying attitude of grasping, a childish attitude, really. It denies the fundamental nature of process in life, the way things change. Grasping is foolish, it denies the transience not only of life or pleasure, but also at a deeper level of culture, world-view, paradigm, fundamental attitudes.

Grasping, and its associated concepts of "having," possessing and "possessions," and affiliation with groups and associated things that seem stable–religions, churches, buildings, flags, sayings, songs, etc., all express this desire for permanence that obscures the anxiety-provoking idea that "even this shall pass away." What's strange is that the mind is sticky enough to feel convinced that since it seems fair, since it is so earnestly desired, then it follows (illogically) that it must be so: You can have truth. Just believe thus and so and all will be well.

Does it then mean that we must live with total insecurity?  Whoa! That's going to the other extreme–another childish tendency. (You see, my depth-psychology orientation as a psychiatrist, trained back when that was more important than knowing about drugs and brain science, does have an important influence on my philosophizing.)

No, there's a middle way: It's possible to learn a group of skills I've called "wisdom-ing," that are analogous to swimming or space-walking, ways to remain somewhat oriented to gravity or space even though the ordinary cues of solidity-on-the-ground are no longer operative. In the realm of mind, these skills have to do with mental flexibility, creativity, communications, negotiations, weaving in kindness, opening to shifting frames  of reference, and so forth.

Frames of Reference

This is a major point in this book. We need to recognize that there are an almost un-ending multiplicity of alternative frames of reference, operating at many different levels intellectually and socially. Humor, playfulness, spirituality, economics, theory, practice, tradition, art, more encompassing philosophical perspectives, abstraction, shifting to its opposite, concrete examples and applications, and so forth–all need to be integrated, and too often are not in many philosophical discourses. Another category involves the perspectives of others, especially those who might disagree, find the whole enterprise un-interesting, or experience these ideas as vaguely subversive or wicked, undermining the established verities (and they're right–I do question a lot of verities, thinking they're not so "ver" –i.e., really true–though I don't consider such questioning as wicked). There are undoubtedly other angles I haven't anticipated. So part of philosophizing, to me, involves the expectation of dialogue–civil, I hope–and disagreement.

If I could say the most essential point in that vast cultural trend known as "postmodernism"–a trend replete with foolish excesses as much as valid insights, as is true of almost any other complex cultural phenomenon–, I would say that it addresses the implications of the awareness of different frames of reference. Just as Whitehead has suggested that much of philosophy might be viewed as a footnote or commentary on the issues raise by Plato, so too, perhaps postmodernism is an elaboration of an insight of Nietzsche's that "all knowledge is perspective."

Just getting clear on what frames of reference will be employed in a piece of discourse may itself be enlightening. If it's a one-way presentation, like this book, I should attempt to state my biases. (Inevitably, I will probably overlook a number that others will later point out.) If the discourse is more of a dialogue, seminar, group process, chat room, then it's ideal if the key players can all seek to discover their own ostensible goals and also hidden agendas.

This is another major principle of postmodernism–or it should be: It's a variation of the principle in Jung's analytical psychology that it is generally useful and insightful–and perhaps an important part of spiritual development as well as wisdom–to "get in touch with your shadow." The "shadow" is the hypothesized "complex" or category of all those qualities that you find most repellent, that you claim to be "not self." It's generally a good practice of mental hygiene to discover those bits of pettiness, spite, hatefulness, inclinations to other sins and shameful limitations and desires, that most people think they can overcome through mere repression and denial.

We need not assume that mere acknowledgment of a temptation means that we're bad. It's possible to be a fine person while still experiencing occasional upwhelmings, bursts, or impulses of less worthy motives or ideas. That doesn't "mean" anything about you, other than being evidence that you're complex and ultimately human. But this insight requires a knowledge of basic psychology–a knowledge lots of people–perhaps most–don't have, or if they do, haven't really understood. There's no purity–no people with no trace of the negative impulses. There are lots of folks who don't let those negative impulses run their lives, but even that's not absolute. So this principle goes beyond self-acceptance to true humility, because knowing your unworthy motivations can actually help you recognize sooner when they're sneaking up to provoke a bit of "acting-out" for which you may later be (properly) ashamed or guilty.

On an interpersonal basis, or public basis, a similar practice involves a willingness to "cop" to your biases. It has to do with transparency, like asking politicians to admit who their biggest contributors are, noting the lobbyists who they've been hanging out with the most, gifts they've received, etc.  So, I'll try to do this as I present my ideas.

Another way to look at bias or frame of reference is in terms of the implied political outlook. The idea that philosophy is pure thought divorced from the mess of politics is as much an illusion as grasping for the truth, or the idea that there is truth apart from an unending set of frames of reference. Politics is the art of the possible, practical implications of a given idea. Sometimes an idea only indirectly supports a given element of the status quo, or it may support a broader challenge to the dominant norm–but even that which is vaguely subversive, even implying anarchy, is in fact supporting certain folks who want to practice those revolutionary ideas. It may be simply through being a fan of a rock star or hip-hop singer who is somewhat shocking in his lyrics or style.

The problem is that of hypocrisy, a most complex issue. People can think with great sincerity that they support a certain idea, and therefore vaguely support those with whom they are roughly allied; yet this support, enacted politically, may push that ideal far beyond the limits that are comfortable for many of the supporters. This is a common problem: Should I vote for X if I think she'll support what I believe? Well, more than the opposition candidates, she supports many of my ideas, but then goes on to propose legislation that I'm not comfortable with–yet I cannot bring myself to campaign against. Well, these dilemmas will happen; there's only hypocrisy when there's an avoidance of thinking about the contradictions explicitly, of allowing these worries to sink into a general sense of "trust"–since "trust" is a "good" word. Actually, trusting is a rationalization for abdicating and avoidance–or what used to be called "copping out" in the 1960s or, in intellectual circles acquainted with Sartre's existential writings in the 1950s, "bad faith," or, in other words, one type of hypocrisy.

My bias: It's better to be conscious than unconscious. One can then take more responsibility. Bias, it's better to be responsible than to just drift with the crowd. Having stated my bias, I can also allow for there being occasions when self-reflection can become oppressive and inhibiting, and one might more wisely allow for activities without this kind of meticulous self-criticism. The wise thing is to at least ask, which kind of situation is this? Does it deserve more careful scrutiny.

Keep Dancing

We need to be willing to re-think, re-question, whatever has come down, especially when it merits such reconsideration. I don't think it's necessary to doubt every policy in every event. Lots of things are going along okay, and it's not necessary to stop the world and re-think every element. Rather, when a problem is discerned, it needs to be analyzed from as many viewpoints as seems necessary to make a working diagnosis.

Now the problem is that diagnosis isn't merely a matter of labeling, but rather of entertaining a working analysis of what's going on. If that doesn't lead to a useful remedy, then it may be time to re-think the situation. In psychiatry, my motto is, "a good diagnosis," an a corollary is, if in doubt, take the history again. Review the information. Consider some other possible diagnoses or relational issues. Not everything in psychotherapy involves early childhood experience. Sometimes we need to look at such non-established issues as basic life values, vocational goals, or cultural influences.

In philosophy, also, when we hit a difficult patch, it may be worthwhile "thinking outside the box," and considering broader contexts.