According to Bernstein (quoting Popper who coined the phrase) the “‘Myth of the Framework,’ is a metaphor which suggest that ‘we are prisoners caught in the framework of our theories; our expectations; our past experiences; our language,’ and that we are so locked into these frameworks that we cannot communicate with those encased in ‘radically’ different frameworks or paradigms.”
*
When you understand what people like Bernstein, Kuhn and Gadamer are actually trying to do, watching the spectacle of what they appear to be doing to people who approach hermeneutics (and related problems) from philosophically naive perspectives (both “for” and “against”) is funny but exasperating. The naive opponents manifest precisely the principles they attempt to deny. The naive proponents tend to take positions Bernstein is trying to overcome and become relativist caricatures: living strawmen for the naive opponents to successfully attack.
*
Part of the reason I have become less enthusiastic about personality typologies over the last several years is that they are so easily used to assert the Myth of the Framework.
Part of the reason I have become less enthusiastic about personality typologies over the last several years is that temperament is so easily used to assert the Myth of the Framework.
Temperament can become a facile refuge for subjectivists who crave a certain kind of intimacy of self-disclosure while being deeply horrified by authentic intersubjectivity. Such people instinctively hate whatever leads toward sharing subjective experience where each subject is rendered a participant in a larger, exceeding subjective whole. In order to remain self-possessed they trade in personas, each party facing the other, regarding the other, empathically modeling the other, inter-recognizing, inter-stimulating across an impenetrable membrane of individual experience.
No doubt this a temperamental issue and nothing can or should be done about it. (Even if it isn’t a temperamental issue, the question is foreclosed on temperamental grounds, and the raising of the question is correctly declared circular.)
Incidentally, this view of subjectivity, no matter how mystically adorned is both naive and thoroughly pedestrian.
I have also become less enthusiastic about Personality typologies (also many I know have lost interest) my reasons are different though I relate to yours as well.
I simply found they were not expansive enough to explain the full range of my personalities potential.
I basically didn’t fit completely into them.
I have wondered why also, I think it may be that they just had their day of popularity, and it receded.
I can also as I said understand your perspective however, I have tried to begin discussions on tribe and with people in general concerning the valuation of of those philosophical positions which are easily misused to support confused stances on one thing or another but I have had very little luck beginning a dialog on the subject.
I think it may be possible that the only limit to which views may be abused or misused in general may be the imagination necessary to misuse them.
I am saying it may just be a matter of time for every view, before it expires and becomes perverted in some way.
“I am saying it may just be a matter of time for every view, before it expires and becomes perverted in some way.”
I totally agree. Ideas live and die like people.
it looks as if there is a dimensional hierarchy of value assessments which require closer examination. In the form of the questions which stand upon them:
(Judgment)
D1. Can the value any school of thought really be determined with accuracy from the determining value of the degree to which it may be misused?
(Value System)
D2. Does consideration of “the potential for misuse” bring enough quality as a determining value to the valuation process to be considered superior to alternatives?
(Intention)
D3. What is the intended outcome of the complete set (is the set complete at all?) determining agents responsible for the selection of the values?
It could go further.