I used to get into positions where I would disagree with some popular decription of reality, and I'd make my own alternative. We all do, I suppose.
When I was attending my Catholic high school, we took a world religions class. In it, they said that a religion was an ultimate description of reality. There are lots of descriptions of reality that are pragmatic, and that need not be so grand. They are still the building blocks of language that we use to tell others what we are doing with our lives. We use such language to tell others about dramatic events that overtake us. Sometimes we may just state a platitude, such as "every day above ground is a good day." Other times we may describe a conflict: "my boss shows up at work and tries to make everyone else as miserable as he is." So there, we used the word "miserable". We are taking it for granted that some people go through life in a state of misery. This assumption is tacit in our description of our boss.
Years ago when I was reading content in the manosphere, I came across what was known there as "your frame." A major component (if not the chief component) of the manosphere's message was simply an articulation of the technique used to attract a woman (or even women). It was thought over there that you had to bring a woman into your frame. Your frame was your way of describing reality. It was your way of stating the rules of reality. Your way of describing recurring phenomena in one's life. If you could make a woman adopt your frame, it was predicted that you had made significant progress in your effort to attract her.
I never use the term "frame" when I am describing my experiences to myself. This post is not about how to attract a woman. It is, in part, a survey of where I have seen others talk about life's recurring events.
During the French Revolution and Robespierre's reign, there was a woman named Catherine Théot who claimed to be Robespierre's mother (and also the mother of God). She was a medium who was making prophesies concerning the future of France, but apart from some followers, she was widely thought to be insane. I bring her up because she claimed to be on Robespierre's side. Her lack of credibility hurt Robespierre's reputation. The Committee of Public Safety decided to arrested her, and soon after, Robespierre was overthrown. Was Robespierre's political language strong enough to protect himself against her problematic position? Could the populace and Convention attendees hold his language as distinct and above her apparent insanity?
I am a strong believer in the idea that life needs to be explained. I've struggled to explain it to myself throughout my years. Sometimes I have adopted the language I've encountered while reading books. Sometimes I've adopted the language I've encountered while watching interviews on late night TV shows. There are inescapable consequences that follow from how you cast your life's events into the stone of verbalized memory. I can name two scary propositions of this difficult-to-avoid action.
The first is that you will be aging, and young or impressionable people will decide that they look up to you. They will imitate you and your language as they hear you using it. Suddenly you will be leading a small group of people down whatever road you were (at one time) going down alone. You will then be responsible for how sturdy your ship on life's waters is. Is your language really going to protect those who are emulating you? Is your language strict and strong enough to prevent others from twisting your words into the territory of wild inaccuracy? Will your followers, if unhappy, have you to blaim for supplying them with inadequate terminology and faulty definitions?
The second is that there will be people who disagree with you explicitly, and they will inform you of this. You are then left in isolation. Are you still comfortable in this isolation? Do you still feel happy and content without that person's closer friendship?
You build a world. When you look around, are you happy with the world you've built?
This is arguably a special case of the saying "you made your bed, now lie in it." But I'm not talking about endeavours you undertook to gain certain acquaintances, professional titles, or material belongings. I'm only talking about the way you chose to articulate how life made you feel. I'm talking about the language you used to explain life to yourself, to explain your behavior to your friends. I'm just talking about the narrative you hold by your side day-in and day-out, the narrative of what you see yourself and others doing on this earth.
Do you like this home you've built? Is your language trustworthy? This is an honesty check. It covers your influence on others, but also whether you are content in the world you live in regardless of how your friends and family feel about your language.
I have been forced to consider the reliability of my version of the truth of things.
