What you’re calling fake frameworks we in contextual behavioral science call a-ontology. By the way, the word “fake” is overburdened IMO. Our take on frameworks is based on pragmatism—“real” is as real works. So choose a framework that advances you towards your goals. The truth criterion in functional contextualism, the philosophy that underlies contextual behavioral science, is effective working rather than correspondence with some assumed objective reality.
When you say > ways of seeing the world that are probably or obviously wrong in some important way, what ways of seeing the world aren’t wrong in some important way? I would contend all are.
I’ve also trained in Aikido (a little) and Tai Chi Chu’an (a lot) which uses chi as a framework and teaching tool. I witnessed and experienced events that seem to defy physics and our commonsense framework of volition over bodily actions. However I’m untroubled and unconfused by that or by using chi to describe those events.
In this sense, the framework I choose to guide me is decided by my goals and roles: Tai Chi instructor: “Extend your chi past your fingertips”; treating physiotherapist: “show me which point in the movement causes pain.”
And you’re right in your penultimate paragraph—it is a learnable skill, but I’ve found it hard to teach. Many people often identify with their ontology—and don’t realise they’re doing that, so asking them to drop it for pragmatic purposes is perceived as a threat to identity.
What you’re calling fake frameworks we in contextual behavioral science call a-ontology. By the way, the word “fake” is overburdened IMO. Our take on frameworks is based on pragmatism—“real” is as real works. So choose a framework that advances you towards your goals. The truth criterion in functional contextualism, the philosophy that underlies contextual behavioral science, is effective working rather than correspondence with some assumed objective reality.
When you say > ways of seeing the world that are probably or obviously wrong in some important way, what ways of seeing the world aren’t wrong in some important way? I would contend all are.
I’ve also trained in Aikido (a little) and Tai Chi Chu’an (a lot) which uses chi as a framework and teaching tool. I witnessed and experienced events that seem to defy physics and our commonsense framework of volition over bodily actions. However I’m untroubled and unconfused by that or by using chi to describe those events.
In this sense, the framework I choose to guide me is decided by my goals and roles: Tai Chi instructor: “Extend your chi past your fingertips”; treating physiotherapist: “show me which point in the movement causes pain.”
And you’re right in your penultimate paragraph—it is a learnable skill, but I’ve found it hard to teach. Many people often identify with their ontology—and don’t realise they’re doing that, so asking them to drop it for pragmatic purposes is perceived as a threat to identity.