We've Been Framed

The reader may benefit from reviewing the articles (see Archives),

This Is Who I Am, This Is What I Have to Say About It, and That’s Not All I Have to Say.

This article concerns itself with the manner in which we determine and define reality and how we interpret information that we receive through our senses. As I share my perceptions of logical reasoning, I will note some principles of sound interpretation. The topic may sound a bit tedious but it is important to our understanding of other people. Additionally, a fuller understanding of who we are assists us in our relationships. Building on this information, we will compare situationalists and absolutists. Where you and those around you stand on this spectrum will impact your personal world significantly.

Frame of Reference
We are constantly receiving information through our senses. We respond to this constant input in accordance to our ever-growing frame of reference. Our frame of reference is that set of ideas, conditions, or assumptions that determine how something will be approached, perceived, or understood and is the sum of our innate qualities and totality of experiences. It is our philosophical foundation. Not only does our frame of reference respond to sensory input, this sensory input enlarges our frame of reference. Put somewhat differently, we are all constantly interpreting information we receive and renewing our frame of reference. The extent and nature of that input will determine the extent and nature of the development of our frame of reference.

Worldview
We often hear the term, “worldview.” It is important to realize that our worldview is determined by our frame of reference. Worldview has been defined as the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual or group interprets the world and interacts with it. Since all of us, to some degree, have distinctive experiences and innate qualities, our frame of reference is unique to each of us as individuals. Born of this frame of reference the individual has a worldview and that worldview can be held by a group of individuals with similar frames of reference.

Conclusions
As you are reading this article you are expanding, at some level, your frame of reference. Based upon your previous experiences you are drawing some conclusions. We reach conclusions about everything to which we are exposed. Our conclusions determine the decisions we will make. The expression of our conclusions can have an intellectual or emotional foundation or both. Regardless of the expression, its origin is found within our internalized being.

For example, based upon who you are, you may have concluded from your reading to this point:

1. “The author is totally off-base and hasn’t a clue as to what he is talking about.” (An intellectual response)
2. “I never did like Dave so I am sure what he is saying is unfounded.” (An emotional response)
3. “I think Dave is a great guy. Whether this material is accurate or not doesn’t matter, because I like Dave.” (Another emotional response)
4. “This material is logical and expands my understanding of my being.” (An intellectual response that the author is hoping for)

Based upon your conclusions you will decide whether you will continue reading or not and if you will investigate these concepts further.

Conclusions are always based on something whether it is evidence or emotions. These conclusions may be accurate or inaccurate.

Pillars
Solid pillars, upon which sound conclusions should be built, must be based upon confirmed data, evidence. If conclusions are founded upon an emotional response there cannot be consistency of expression. The pillars of emotions are built upon the shifting sands of feelings. Even if the conclusions are built upon observable data, the strength of those conclusions is only as strong as the quality of that data. If the data becomes unsupportable, the pillars of the conclusions crumble as does that conclusion itself. It is of no more value than an emotional response of opinion. The conclusion is only as strong as the pillars that support it.

Nor does a consensus of opinion validate a conclusion. The strength of the conclusion still must be validated by evidence as opposed to the number of individuals who hold to that conclusion. If ninety-nine out of one hundred people believe that the earth is flat, it doesn’t make it so. A false conclusion can only create an invalidated perception not a provable result. This is true even if those making such a conclusion are considered experts in the field. Expertise only holds as much weight as the substance of its evidence.

Intellectual Honesty or Agenda Driven?
Changing definitions or terminology to justify a previously held to view that has become evidentiary insupportable is intellectually dishonest and is reflective of an agenda driven mind set. Agenda driven motivation is founded upon preconceived dogma for which the individual or group is willing to compromise honesty for a desired outcome. “The end justifies the means.” Those who hold to that position may be sincere in their belief or insincere. Regardless, if the position cannot be adequately supported by the evidence it is invalid.

A major weakness in the processes of an agenda driven person is the use of eisegesius as opposed to exegesis in drawing conclusions. The eisegetical approach begins with an idea (preconceived conclusion) held to by the individual or group. The next step in the process is to seek all data which will support the conclusion, generally ignoring all non- supportive data. It is possible for any person or group to justify any idea that they hold to strongly by using this process.

An exegetical approach, however, draws conclusions from the data. Those who use this approach begin with the evidence and surmise from that which is provable. All data is significant in reaching a conclusion, even if it does not support what was previously believed. Their frame of reference is renewed by new input. The agenda driven person only internalizes that which reinforces what was previously believed.

Tails and Legs
Abraham Lincoln asked his son, Tad, “If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does the dog have?” Tad responded, “Five.” “No Tad, simply calling a dog’s tail a leg doesn’t make it so.” Lincoln’s wisdom still applies today. Simply saying something is so doesn’t make it so regardless of who says it. It doesn’t matter whether the position is held to in the religious world, the scientific community, or the political arena; it must be supported by real evidence.

In the next article we will compare the worldview of the situationalist to that of the absolutist. You are one or the other, or can you be both?