Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ondra Kupka's avatar

(My thoughts put together using Claude.)

Enjoyed both parts. But I kept noticing a gap the framework doesn't quite address: where does the motivation to do any of this come from?

The whole model presupposes a self that already wants to flourish and engage skillfully with reality. But that wanting is itself probably the deepest frame of all, and it's not one you can choose or craft your way into. If someone is fundamentally contracted around self-protection, the invitation to try on different frames just doesn't land. Something has to crack them open first.

More broadly, I think the framework is too cognitive. Relevance realization, the 4Ps, Cynefin — these are sophisticated tools, but I'm not sure they matter that much in practice. If your deepest motivation is genuinely oriented toward something good — toward others, toward love, perhaps towards bodhichitta — it will point out the relevant direction well enough without a lot of apparatus. And if it isn't, no amount of frame selection will compensate. The actual implementation, which frame you pick and how skillfully, feels like a secondary problem compared to what you fundamentally want.

There's also a deeper tension in the second part that I think is worth naming. The self-authoring thread — becoming the conscious author of your own narrative and values, the frame wizard who stands behind all frames and chooses between them — is a genuine developmental achievement. But it installs the sovereign self more firmly at the center. And theurgy, deity yoga, and what Burbea is actually pointing at are all movements in the opposite direction. The whole point of those practices is that the self-authoring self is precisely the obstacle. In deity yoga you don't author yourself as the deity — you dissolve into them. In theurgy the soul submits to divine action rather than orchestrating it. Even in Kegan's own model, stage 5 involves the self-authored identity becoming an object in turn, something you can hold lightly and let go of. The article stops at stage 4 and calls it wisdom. From the vantage point of the traditions you're gesturing toward, the frame wizard is still asleep — just more elegantly so.

This is where Iamblichus becomes the missing interlocutor in the Neoplatonist thread that Vervaeke manages to ignore, it seems. He broke explicitly with Plotinus on exactly this point: the soul is too embedded in matter to think or philosophise its way back. The gods must act on you through ritual that works not because you understand it but because it participates in what it invokes. That's a very different model from frame selection — and it maps onto Vajrayana for the same reason: deity yoga, empowerment, and devotion exist precisely because transformation cannot be bootstrapped from inside your own cognitive system. The frame wizard behind the curtain is itself the illusion that needs dissolving.

Burbea as you describe him actually gestures at this — the practitioner being opened by something coming through the images, desire deepened rather than managed. But the article folds him back into the toolkit, which I think domesticates him. His radicalism, as you present it, is that desire and devotion do the heavy lifting, not metacognition.

Insight clearly matters. But motivation, love, and devotion tend to be what keep the spiral turning when insight fades.

Alan's avatar

This is just an observation - but it feels like you're redoing Bandler/Grinder/Pucelik NLP stuff a bit. The meme stuff was essentially a retelling of the meta-model, now you're doing frames. :-)

3 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?