Semantic Restructuring is the pursuit of enlightenment, enlivenment, empowerment through the creative re-arranging of the building blocks of meaning. For a better description, Start Here.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 |
| Months | ||
|---|---|---|
| Jan | Feb | Mar |
| Apr | May | Jun |
| Jul | Aug | Sep |
| Oct | Nov | Dec |
Bateson, books, cogling, context, CPB, embodiment, framing, I Ching, paradox, perception influence, prisdem, semantic punctuation, sensation, techniques, unconscious
Ponder the difference between talking to a group in their vernacular for one's own gain as opposed to talking down to that same group with the intent to ease their plight. This seems akin to a Grinder/Elgin truth split: one teaches words have no meaning except what we assign while the other builds her career largely on "words can hurt." Both are right, and anyone trying to work solely from one position or the other is in for a hard time.
Likewise, then, for the difference between "matching the audience's model of the world" to get them to sign on to my agenda versus "talking down to the audience."
No, that's not quite right either; there is a pejorative connotation to "talking down to" that I can't quite shake. The difference is, in my hypothetical situation which may or may not be my take on certain political developments, is that one group talks *to* the "common man" and one group "talks down to" that same demographic. The result is, in some commentators' view, a people voting against their class interests. What I am trying to put my finger on is this difference between talking to and talking down to. All thoughts and comments on that difference are germane to this forum.
[]
static link
writebacks: 0 (writeback = trackback +/- comment)
Tags: framing