framing about framing

[Leftymathprof (Eric Schechter)]

I am starting to think that talking about framing, or even framing
about framing, matters very much.

Rove, Norquist, Limbaugh, and their ilk have a very powerful
hierarchical system for strengthening and spreading conservative
frames. The only way that we not-so-hierarchical people can hope to
compete is if we have a grassroots or viral system. That requires that
we have a very large population who understand what framing is and how
it works. We need to get the entire progressive movement, not just a
small Lakoffite vanguard, to be conscious of frames. Otherwise most
progressives will just be spinning their wheels around "facts,"
wasting a large part of their efforts on ineffective topics.

So we need to ask ourselves: what is the obstacle to having everyone
understand framing? It is the same obstacle that blocks getting people
to understand any idea: it is when that idea is not framed properly.

So we need to study how the whole subject of framing, or of
communication, is framed.

I will put the question another way (though perhaps this is merely a
factual way, and thus is less to the point): Why are so few people
reading and understanding Lakoff? I would suggest a few possible
answers:

Lakoff's ideas are really very radical, more radical than they might
at first appear. (This is not the same thing as saying they are new,
and I don't want to get into that can of worms. Nearly every idea has
some similar precedent in earlier literature; it is rather rare that
there is something completely new under the sun. Lakoff himself talks
about his predecessors and which one of them contributed which ideas.
That's not my point. Let's just say that Lakoff has formed a
particular synthesis, a particular collection of ideas, a particular
promotion of a set of ideas; I will call those the Lakoffian ideas.)
Their radicalness is part of what is emphasized in THE POLITICAL MIND.
Beyond such matters as progressive or conservative, a crucial part of
our worldview is our understanding of how knowledge and reason work,
of how information is processed and exchanged, of how decisions are
reached. In his latest book, Lakoff points out that the mainstream
view of knowledge is devoid of any awareness about framing.

So that's part of the difficulty: The awareness of framing is a
radical idea; it is drastically different from the mainstream,
customary, habitual view of the world. We are not all accustomed to
talking about framing (perhaps with some of the present company
excepted; by "we" I mean most people in our society). Framing is not
part of our everyday conversation. We don't have a big stock of idioms
and metaphors that are commonly used in discussions of framing. We
don't have lots of novels and movies in which the awareness of framing
plays a conspicuous role. We don't have a big linguistic
infrastructure to support it. This makes the discussion of framing a
technical, specialized, academic pursuit, not something so commonplace
and familiar as "the price of these potato chips has gone up" or "Jack
is dating Joan now." An idea is very simple and easy to express if
one's language and culture are suited for that idea, but in this case
our language and culture are not. The perfect language for talking
about framing does not yet exist.

(Did any of you read the novel "Native Tongue ," by Suzette
Haden.Elgin? It was published in 1984; you may still be able to find
it in some libraries. Elgin, the author, was also a linguist. The
novel spans many years, and depicts women in a society more sexist
than our own. A group of linguist feminist women band together and
secretly construct, over years, a language that reflects their true
reality better than any existing language.)

Another part of the difficulty is that no one, not even Lakoff, has a
perfect understanding of the Lakoffian ideas. He lives in the same
world as the rest of us. Well, mostly. Admittedly, he is a bit more
gifted and more trained than most of us, so he can see a bit further;
he is sometimes succeeding in thinking outside the box and then
leading other people to ouside the box as well. But even he is limited
by the aforementioned lack of idioms and metaphors. Even he does not
yet know the perfect language for talking about framing.

Would it help to start building up a stock of parables in which
framing plays a big role? Little stories that are not attached to
political issues, and which thus illustrate basic ideas of framing
without triggering off emotional responses to the issues involved?

But the wider story, the "frame story," the one in which we tell all
these parables, must be progressively framed.


Actually, I have no idea what I'm talking about. This seems to me the
logical consequence of some ideas that are apparent, but I don't know
the next step. That's because I have a little skill with logic, but
far less skill with framing. And logic is like facts -- it doesn't get
the job done. Does any of this make sense?

[Greg Lawless]

I agree that talking about framing is important. I"m not sure how to frame framing, and I've only just begun "The Political Mind", which I am hoping will help me not just understand it better than the previous books did, but be able to relate that understanding to others. I seem to understand it somewhere deep down, because when I read "Don't Think of an Elephant", it just sort of clicked inside. But I still have trouble with the articulation of these ideas, which causes me MAJOR frustration.

 

As a side note, when I said "radical" in the other thread, I meant it in the sense of "extremist", not in the "revolutionary" sense as it is used here.

[Moriji]

So what is "extremist" about those who are complaining about the FISA
bill? Please define what is an "extremist" position. Am I an
"extremist?"

I'm a biconceptual by the way. But I don't believe in touting
conservative values on the campaign trail.

I'm also not a militant. I don't even like guns, something that you
support.

So I would like to know what exactly is "extremist." I find the Bush
administration to be extremist. Do you?

George Bush supports the FISA bill too. So are you saying that you
agree with George Bush in this case? And that George Bush isn't
always extremist?

I'm getting very confused by some of the stuff I'm hearing from some
progressives. I think some clarification is in order.

I would also like to know if all those Obama supporters who are
complaining on his site now are "extremists." If that's the case,
then perhaps Obama won't mind the "extremists" dropping their support
and going elsewhere? Or are you saying they should stop being
"extremist" and support him all the way? I'm very confused...

On Jul 11, 10:06 am, "Greg Lawless" <g...@gvlawless.com> wrote:
> I agree that talking about framing is important. I"m not sure how to frame
> framing, and I've only just begun "The Political Mind", which I am hoping
> will help me not just understand it better than the previous books did, but
> be able to relate that understanding to others. I seem to understand it
> somewhere deep down, because when I read "Don't Think of an Elephant", it
> just sort of clicked inside. But I still have trouble with the articulation
> of these ideas, which causes me MAJOR frustration.
>
> As a side note, when I said "radical" in the other thread, I meant it in the
> sense of "extremist", not in the "revolutionary" sense as it is used here.
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Leftymathprof (Eric Schechter) <
>

[janine kovac]

I think the biggest obstacle to framing is that so many people think, "I don't think that way."  Lakoff calls this Old Enlightenment, although it's worth pointing out that several academics who make their living on their exhaustive knowledge of the 18th century dispute that the Enlightement era can be so easily simplified. 

But I digress . . .

The point is - many people don't believe that THEIR ability to digest or ignore facts is dependent on whether or not they have a frame on which to understand said facts.  And, as we know, it's not enough to just give them the facts that our brains need frames to understand facts!

The other big obstacle that stems from the refusal to understand that we need a framework (however abstract) to understand what we understand, is the refusal to believe in mutual inhibition -- the refusal to believe that activating certain frames literally means that you are unable to activate certain others (why you can be anxious and fearful at the same time but not fearful and happy).  So many people sincerely believe that THEY can not think of an elephant.  Or that ya, in the simple case you think of an elephant, but not in a really complicated story.

That book sounds really interesting, Lefty.  I'd like to look for it.  

Story lines and narratives are so key.  Did anyone see the midterm I posted from Lakoff's spring class?  Creating a narrative was the first part of the test.  I only posted answers from a couple of students, b/c sadly, I didn't get that many responses, but the questions are all there.  We could go over them as a group.  

But again, I am amazed at the number of intelligent, articulate people who have flat out told me, "No, people don't think that way."  

[Leftymathprof (Eric Schechter)]

Moriji, did you accidentally post your message in the wrong thread? Or
is it connected to the two preceding messages in some fashion that I
don't see?

[Leftymathprof (Eric Schechter)]

Never mind, I see that Greg mentioned extremism.

On Jul 12, 7:54 am, "Leftymathprof (Eric Schechter)"

[Leftymathprof (Eric Schechter)]

"That book sounds really interesting, Lefty. I'd like to look for it
"

You might find it interesting to look at Elgin's web page, at

http://www.sfwa.org/members/elgin/

I have to confess that I haven't read any of her work, except two or
three of her novels. I took a few seconds' glance at some of her
linguistics writing; at least part of it seemed to be about how
language is connected with gender strife (the same theme as the novel
I mentioned). The novel doesn't really show any of the nitty gritty of
linguistics, though it does show a spirit much like the one we are
trying to adopt here: the main characters in the novel were women who
dedicated their lives to trying to make the world a significantly
better place through their application of linguistics. Actually, if
you go to

http://www.sfwa.org/members/elgin/SiteMap.html

there is a collection of links, including one section titled

"The Láadan Language (and Constructed Languages)"

which deals with the language created in the novel.

[Gregory J. Lawless]

Yes, but the amazing thing ius that I hadn't actually said in the other
thread that those complaining about FISA were extremist. And here I was just
clarifying because you also used the word "radical" and I was pretty sure
you meant revolutionary and not extremist and wanted ot be sure others were
clear that I don't disagree with that interpretation nor think it is a bad
thing.

My point about extremism is that there seem to be those who wish to see a
government and country that have been sliding into conservatism for forty
years suddenly race back all the way to the beginning of that slide and
beyond. Yeah, I'd love to see the little elf as the President, but he's not
running anymore. I might also have enjoyed having Nader, except HE is one of
those people who thinks you can just point out the facts and people will go
"OH! Of course we'll vote for you!" So as I see it, the choice really is
between the biconceptual who leans more towards progressivism and speaks as
a progressive, or the full fledged conservative who speaks as a conservative
on progressive issues. I have gone WAY beyond bashing a candidate over ONE
issue, even if it is one issue a week. The reason I am behind Obama and will
stay behind Obama is because his OVERALL message is one of progressivism and
I believe he WILL become more and more progressive. With Obama as President,
progressive have a chance to be heard. With McCain as President...well,
we'll be heard, all right..on recordings of our private conversations used
as the basis for sending us to Gitmo. (Just kidding, but you know...it's not
playing the "fear game" if someone is standing on railroad tracks and you
tell them that they might get hit by a train. It's only the fear game if you
tell them that if it's a Republican driving, you're safe, but if it's a
Democrat, you're dead.)

And Moriji? Yeah, I think you might just be a little extremist. Of course,
you could be more like me, where you have a strong visceral reaction to
something and say things that later you might wish had been couched in
different language.

And were you trying to convey that support for legal gun ownership makes one
a militant?

George Bush doesn't actually support the FISA bill. George Bush would rather
they just let him wiretap whoever he wants because he's the "decider". As
for is he extremist "all the time"...yeah, he's a major extremist who would
REALLY like to be in complete charge and crush all resistance. But I never
said I support the FISA bill. I said I support Obama as my choice for
President. I never said I have to agree one hundred percent with my choice
of candidate on every last thing. If I wanted that, I'd be running for
President. And even then, I'm not sure I'd vote for me, because I disagree
with myself quite a lot. And I change my mind sometimes. Like during the
course of this message. You should probably be happy I did. As confused and
jumbled as it is, it's a hell of a lot nicer than where I started. :shrug:
Whatever, it's the last time I'm addressing this issue.

Sorry to take this thread off topic, Lefty. we cna now resume regular
programming. Unless Edwin would like to make this one about FCV also? :)

[Moriji]

You still haven't answered my question. What is an extremist?

> ...
>
> read more »

[EdwinRutsch]

Gregory

> Unless Edwin would like to make this one about FCV also? :)

I'm getting ready for Netroots next week and don't have much time to
post. but, I couldn't resist your invitation. ;)


yes! this topic is absolutely about the Failure of Conservative
Values. I would encourage Obama and other progressives and democrats
and liberals not to embrace the Failed Conservative Values.


It's about the:
Failed Conservative Value of Authoritarianism - That's where those in
power think they can do what they want and monitor and spy on the
'little children.'


Failed Conservative Values: Elaine Charkowski on Patriarchy Family
Values
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/blog_posts/25718


Failed Conservative Values: Louise Specht on Hierarchy
Authoritarian Narcissism
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/blog_posts/25718


Failed Conservative Values: Dona Ridgeway on Authoritarianism
http://democracyforamerica.com/blog_posts/25697


It's about the Failed Conservative Values of Fear and Power. Where
they can use fear of terrorism to intimidate the people for gaining
personal power, all under the guise of security.


Failed Conservative Values: Aris Harmon on Fear and Power
http://democracyforamerica.com/blog_posts/25526

It's about the Failed Conservative Value of Corruption - it's the
corruption of the laws. Saying it's fine for those in power to break
and corrupt the law.

Failed Conservative Values: Jim Dean on Corruption 
http://democracyforamerica.com/blog_posts/25423

So, I would encourage Obama and other progressives not to move closer
to these failed conservative values.

However, what I am trying to understand is the anger and venom
directed at other progressives. I'm hearing, 'don't tell
conservatives the truth about how their values have failed, because
they will not understand it. Don't tell them the truth because you
will turn them off to your message of caring and empathy.' However,
there is such venom and lack of empathy directed at Obama, etc. for
moving closer to the failed conservative values of authoritarianism,
secrecy, deception, fear, power, etc. I'm all for telling the truth
about how you feel to other progressives, but why not try it with
conservatives who were the ones to actually instigate and perpetuate
all these failed values of; irresponsibility, fear, corruption,
authoritarianism, etc. I'd like to see the same outrage directed
towards them. But all I hear is, don't tell them the truth, since it
might get them angry or hurt their feelings or they will not
understand it or those aren't their values, etc, etc. Seems like the
liberals and progressives, probably out of fear, are more the
enablers than the instigators.

To see progressives who don't mind telling their truth to
conservatives see;
http://progressivespirit.com/InterviewStories/ProgressiveValuesStories.htm


I could go on and on.. but have so much to do.. you probably won't
hear much from me for a couple of weeks until after netroots. I'll be
focusing on doing interviews there about the Failure of Conservative
Values. So, I'll bring back lots and lots of stories.

So Gregory, yes, this is absolutely about the failure of conservative
values. Thanks for bringing it up. ;)

p.s.. it's so interesting that the Failed Conservative Values already
has an acronym - FCV
it seems to be getting intigrated into the culture. very good..

[Gregory J. Lawless]

Actually, I did answer that, but if you need it spelled out:

An extremist is someone who pulls the "If I can't have everything just the
way *I* want it, then I'm not playing". One issue voters are extremists.
Even having a FEW differences with a candidate and saying that makes the
candidate not "progressive" smells like extremism to me. And people who go
LOOKING for reasons to say someone isn't progressive, who break down EVERY
LITTLE thing someone says or does looking for evidence of progressive heresy
are extremist.

Now, as I've said, it may actually be more that you are a knee-jerk
reactionary than an actual radical. I don't know. All I know is the attitude
I've seen displayed here. And that I'm not going into. I'm done with the
subject.

[h quester]

Gregory

very well said,

[Moriji]

Well, that's not me then. You are projecting what you want on to me.
Please re-read my posts.

I could also turn this around and say that you are looking for reasons
to call anyone who criticizes as an extremist. It goes both ways,
dude.

And remember, you were the one who started with this extremism label
calling. And now you don't want to talk about it. Next time, don't
bring it up.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Moriji]

Actually, that was very not well said.

On Jul 12, 12:21 pm, "h quester" <hques...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gregory
>
> very well said,

[Moriji]

Oh, one more thing... calling me a knee jerk reactionary instead is
not really any more flattering than calling me extremist... it goes
back, once again, to the neoliberal view that people are unemotional,
rational, cool headed thinkers.

But to bring to this point home, you sound rather frustrated yourself
right now, so I guess you could be labeled a knee jerk partisan robot.

Having fun with labels, yet? Makes you feel good, huh?

And all I'm doing is expressing my opinions. Looks like people in
America are not used to it after 30 years of blindly obeying
authority. What's actually normal, healthy behavior is being label as
abnormal, and abnormal behavior is called normal.

Orwell is probably turning over in his grave right now...

Okay, forget it!!! You're right!!!! Everyone vote for Obama!!!! We
need change!!!! Go out and there and work it, baby!!!

> ...
>
> read more »

[Moriji]

Oops, I wasn't clear enough. I meant to say:

"it goes back, once again, to the neoliberal view that people are

unemotional, rational, cool headed thinkers, and anyone who isn't is
some crazy, emotional, out of control abomination."

> ...
>
> read more »

[Patrick Draper]

Moriji wrote:
> Oops, I wasn't clear enough. I meant to say:
>
>

Can we PLEASE get off the issues discussion, unless it's about framing?
We all get it.
You're mad about the immunity vote. Do you really need to spam everybody
and every
thread with it, and then follow up to yourself three times to get your
idea straight?

We know the framing is pretty weak when it comes to our candidates and our
progressive supporters. We know that you can't ever get the votes on the
issues without
the framing on the issues.

Framing. That's our job. To me, that means that Obama's bad vote means
WE screwed
up, meaning that we did not get the framing in place.

--
Patrick Draper |Don't |pdr...@gmail.com
Austin, Texas |Fear |Father Order runs at a
http://www.pdrap.org |The |good pace, but old Mother
Be Microsoft Free - Use Linux|Penguin|Chaos is winning the race.

[Amy Meier]

>
> Framing. That's our job. To me, that means that Obama's bad vote means
> WE screwed
> up, meaning that we did not get the framing in place.
>

C'mon now, that's not really fair either.

A wise friend once suggested that I could feel free to personally take credit for all of the positive outcomes I experience
and relegate the failures to other factors. I like doing that because although I am not responsible for all of the positive,
I am also responsible for very little of the negative. I can influence and work at it as much as I want, but there always will
be many other variables that play into my life's experiences.

The best solution for Obama is to petition him regardless of where you stand.

A totally different wise friend said this yesterday:
"When a group forms organically
at first it's formin'
then it's stormin' (as internal conflicts arise)
then it's normin'  (forming patterns and systems to work together)
then it's either performin' or mournin'

---

It’s a talkathon – but it’s not just talk. Check out the i’m Talkathon.

[Leftymathprof (Eric Schechter)]

I was hoping that we would talk about framing. But oh well, what the
hell...

In one of my other listserves, someone brought up the issue of amnesty
versus prosecuting the criminals, and someone brought up the example
of the Business Plot, in which Bush's grandfather and assorted cronies
were plotting to stage a coup to overthrow FDR. The plot was
discovered and halted, but the perpetrators were never tried, and the
whole thing was hushed up; some people wonder why. I've heard two
explanations for why, which have some overlap between them: (i) FDR
remained friends with the powerful people who had been plotting
against him. They were part of the same coutnry-club social stratum,
like the "Party of Davos" that Jeff Faux talks about. (ii) FDR needed
the cooperation of the rich and powerful, to get his New Deal to work;
he traded them non-prosecution for cooperation.

Politics is the art of the possible. It's hard to guess what is going
on in Obama's mind. He *did* take some campaign donations from the
telecommunications industry.

But in any case, if we can fix our frames, we can change what is
possible; we can open up new possibilities.

I would like to return to my original question (and perhaps move
discussions of Obama to a separate thread). How can we frame framing?
How can we explain framing to make it easier for more people to
understand?

[Patrick Draper]

Amy Meier wrote:
>
> >
> > Framing. That's our job. To me, that means that Obama's bad vote means
> > WE screwed
> > up, meaning that we did not get the framing in place.
> >
>
>
> C'mon now, that's not really fair either.

I don't mean that all the blame is ours, but some certainly is. We're
all in the same boat, right?

[Patrick Draper]

Leftymathprof (Eric Schechter) wrote:
> I would like to return to my original question (and perhaps move
> discussions of Obama to a separate thread). How can we frame framing?
> How can we explain framing to make it easier for more people to
> understand?
>
>

Is there something such as a "framing lite?" All progressives need to
know how
to use the language without being linguists. It should be possible to
make a product
out of framing that everyone can use without necessarily being able to
understand
everything about how it works. Conservatives seem to do that without
having to
sell framing to every individual conservative.

I've heard about a book that's published with issues, and the
conservative framing
language recommended for the issue.

I also recall every talking head repeating the "dodged a bullet"
language re: Katrina within about
5 minutes of what must have been a command-and-control style distribution of
the phrase. Someone got on the phone and said "this is the language
we'll use" and
every conservative apologist said it on the air that day. Do they
understand framing?
Or are they just consuming the products of a very few that develop and
understand
conservative framing?

We need a handbook of issues and frames. We should use the frame of
"communication" rather
than "marketing" because marketing feels like manipulation. Call the
book "Effective communication
of progressive values" and get someone like Markos and the influential
Kos diarists to buy into it.
The actual set of people who need to truly buy into framing might be
fairly small.

[janine kovac]

I think the issue is that conservative thought doesn't need to "believe in frames" because their idea of the Moral Order makes them embrace repeating a message sent from "above" as we have pointed out many times.  The liberal media doesn't believe in just repeating the conservative message verbatim, but since they don't "believe in frames" they don't understand that they if their verbage rests on conservative frames, they are essentially repeating the same message.  The common misconception that framing and spin are the same things prevents the media from introducing new frames because they think it's possible to have a neutral message and use neutral language.

So the end goal is to make people aware that words are not neutral.  Lakoff does this by talking about frames.  And of course, if you don't have the frames to understand frames, you'll come out "not believing" in them. 

So "framing lite" would be using the frames and narratives that already exist in our culture to explain that words aren't neutral.  This may be why Political Mind starts with the narrative of Anna Nicole Smith.  We have frames to understand that we understand in terms of narrative.  (Fairy tales, fables, parables, etc).

[Marv]

With frustration thinking's fraught!
I sometimes think I'll think no more,
For when I spend much time in thought,
I unthink things I thought before.
anonymous
Marv

On Jul 12, 8:13 am, "Gregory J. Lawless" <g...@gvlawless.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[janine kovac]

or . . . Framing Lite is . . .

I think Amy gave a good description of frames when she talked about her son's experience in a play.  I also like the beginning of Elephant, particularly where Lakoff talks about the California recall election and how there were different narratives behind different media stories and how each narrative meant that certain facts didn't "fit."

[janine kovac]

or . . . Framing Lite is . . .

I think Amy gave a good description of frames when she talked about her son's experience in a play.  I also like the beginning of Elephant, particularly where Lakoff talks about the California recall election and how there were different narratives behind different media stories and how each narrative meant that certain facts were ignored because they didn't "fit."  Different narratives ignored different facts. 

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM, janine kovac <janine...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Leftymathprof (Eric Schechter)]

That's close to what Zinn says about bias in history books. I dont'
remember where he said it, so I'm paraphrasing him and probably adding
some of my own ideas. To actually write a history book that tells the
*whole" story about anything is not possible -- it would take up not
just a book, but a large building full of books. The historian must be
selective, both in the directions of research she chooses during her
preparation for writing the book, and in the topics and facts she
includes or omits when she does finally write the book. The historian
includes what she considers to be "important," but there is no way for
this consideration to be "objective"; it can only be based on the
assumptions, beliefs, worldview of the historian. So every history
book is biased, regardless of whether the historian proclaims her bias
or is even aware of her bias. Unlike most historians, Zinn proudly
proclaims his.

But a whole history book contains many, many frames. I guess a frame
would be the smallest ingredient of a story. If you think of a history
as a material substance, then a frame would be just one atom in the
makeup of that substance. (Or it would be one molecule? Perhaps the
analogy isn't good enough for us to decide whether it would be an atom
or a molecule.)

On Jul 17, 1:23 pm, "janine kovac" <janine.ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> or . . . Framing Lite is . . .
>
> I think Amy gave a good description of frames when she talked about her
> son's experience in a play. I also like the beginning of Elephant,
> particularly where Lakoff talks about the California recall election and how
> there were different narratives behind different media stories and how each
> narrative meant that certain facts were ignored because they didn't "fit."
> Different narratives ignored different facts.
>

> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM, janine kovac <janine.ko...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> > I think the issue is that conservative thought doesn't need to "believe in
> > frames" because their idea of the Moral Order makes them embrace repeating a
> > message sent from "above" as we have pointed out many times. The liberal
> > media doesn't believe in just repeating the conservative message verbatim,
> > but since they don't "believe in frames" they don't understand that they if
> > their verbage rests on conservative frames, they are essentially repeating
> > the same message. The common misconception that framing and spin are the
> > same things prevents the media from introducing new frames because they
> > think it's possible to have a neutral message and use neutral language.
>
> > So the end goal is to make people aware that words are not neutral. Lakoff
> > does this by talking about frames. And of course, if you don't have the
> > frames to understand frames, you'll come out "not believing" in them.
>
> > So "framing lite" would be using the frames and narratives that already
> > exist in our culture to explain that words aren't neutral. This may be why
> > Political Mind starts with the narrative of Anna Nicole Smith. We have
> > frames to understand that we understand in terms of narrative. (Fairy
> > tales, fables, parables, etc).
>

> > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Patrick Draper <pdra...@gmail.com>