Frame of Mind

It has been said that our lives, characters, and experiences ultimately are functions of our frames (frames of mind). Would you agree? - by Community Mailbox
It has been said that our lives, characters, and experiences ultimately are functions of our frames (frames of mind). Would you agree?
Yes I agree.

We all must develop a sense of having a single identity. This is made possible by eliminating and reducing non-conforming alternatives from entering our lives.

This is often called the Law of Conformity. Our character determines the experiences we choose in order to remain tethered to a particular frame of mind.

This process demands however, that all "frames" eventually and ultimately be reduced to a single "frame."

If that did not happen we would all be schizophrenic. - by John Voris
Yes I agree.

We all must develop a sense of having a single identity. This is made possible by eliminating and reducing non-conforming alternatives from entering our lives.

This is often called the Law of Conformity. Our character determines the experiences we choose in order to remain tethered to a particular frame of mind.

This process demands however, that all "frames" eventually and ultimately be reduced to a single "frame."

If that did not happen we would all be schizophrenic.
I don't agree.

The quest for a single identity can too easily, and often does, lead to fettering on Self at the expense of disconnecting from the universal.

Jung's construct of archetypes, a theory which I subscribe to wholeheartedly, allows for multiple, hardwired, parts of our psyche (derived from soul, btw,) which can serve us well in the varying sets of circumstances we find our lives in.

True, our character often chooses our experiences, or avoidance of experiences, but once we become keenly aware of the story lines we have written for ourselves, we can change those stories. Many have, but in the context of this thread, we can still call forth those internal frames as the needs arise.

Conformity, whether we ascribe "law" to it or not, is merely one more nominalization. As we go through life, sometimes we conform, and sometimes we don't. One context of Identity, observed in the lives of many achievers in all walks of life and pursuits, will show strong evidence that they did not conform which probably accounted for their success. - by Gary A Boye
As usual you two are talking way above me, not necessarily a bad thing, though. However, I choose to see life a little more simplistic. I didn't choose my birth or who my parents were. I didn't choose to be born in the poorest of the Appalachia's to a country preacher. That is what shaped me. That is what made me who I am. I do believe that many things I have chosen and paid the price of choosing but those choices also made me a better person. A person willing and choosing to do more to make my life more. I believe life has made me better. A better person with richer character and compassion. - by MPrince
As usual you two are talking way above me, not necessarily a bad thing, though. However, I choose to see life a little more simplistic.
Martha, I am too much aware of your professionalism, your commitment, your skill sets, and your excellent mind, to buy in to the notion that I'm talking above you. If I'm communicating in a style that does not register with you, then shame on me. All of the stuff John and I talk about come from the same world we all live in. We value language variations to a fault perhaps. But above you? Never. - by Gary A Boye
I don't agree.
Gary, it amazes me the depth and variety of topics you explore.

Much of this apparent disconnect is just symptomatic of the venue and my need to be more specific.

When sales training fails, it is due in part by trainers demanding that the trainee change something that is immutable to who they are. After being told that anyone can sell, these people “beat themselves up” after not making quota. They are thinking there is something wrong with them because they cannot be someone they are not.

People need to know that there are limitations to personal change. However, we more than often doubt ourselves and fail to realize that we can do much more than we think we can. History offers ample evidence for both sides.

Your comments are in bold.
Jung quotes are italicized
I am the rest.

The quest for a single identity can too easily, and often does, lead to fettering on Self at the expense of disconnecting from the universal.

That is right! But the Single Identity is already present. If you go on a quest to find it, you will be pursuing the wrong attempt. I say attempt because you cannot replace your Single Identity.

It is at once evident that a plurality of personalities can never appear in normal individuals.

By individuality I mean the peculiarity and singularity of the individual in every psychological respect.

Regardless of what our friends, relatives, associates and intimate partners, say on facebook, salespractice, tweet or other venues, we recognize their individuality. That single Archetype makes this possible.

Gary can say anything he wants but he will not stop giving us a Gary version.

Jung's construct of archetypes, a theory which I subscribe to wholeheartedly, allows for multiple, hardwired, parts of our psyche (derived from soul, btw,) which can serve us well in the varying sets of circumstances we find our lives in.

This is also true but it is the Collective Unconsciousness that holds the infinite hard-wired number of potential Archetypes from which we choose as our own as abstract mind.

While we utilize various archetypal methods, they are the tools of the Primary Archetype that holds our identity together. This Primary Archetype will be altered over time but never abruptly on command, or traded for another. If so, we would no longer have a sense of self.

It is the persona that represents our changing public image. The word comes from a Latin word for mask. So the persona is the mask you put on before you show yourself to the outside world

At its best, it is just the "good impression" we all wish to present as we fill the roles society requires of us. But, of course, it can also be the "false impression" we use to manipulate people's opinions and behaviors. And, at its worst, it can be mistaken, even by ourselves, for our true nature: Sometimes we believe we really are what we pretend to be!

True, our character often chooses our experiences, or avoidance of experiences, but once we become keenly aware of the story lines we have written for ourselves, we can change those stories. Many have, but in the context of this thread, we can still call forth those internal frames as the needs arise.

I agree, we can call forth internal frames as needed if and only if they conform with our Primary Archetype. So, tomorrow Gary will not be buying a gun to rob a bank. Think of all the things you will not be doing, and then think of all those things you find impossible for you to do because you don’t want to. Where does that “don’t want to come from?”

All of these “stories” to which you refer, are clustered with others, tethered to the Primary Archetype, which identifies Gary, and no other. This is what makes Gary consistently in his uniqueness.

Conformity, whether we ascribe "law" to it or not, is merely one more nominalization. As we go through life, sometimes we conform, and sometimes we don't. One context of Identity, observed in the lives of many achievers in all walks of life and pursuits, will show strong evidence that they did not conform which probably accounted for their success.

Sorry, this was misleading without clarification. By conformity I did not mean social conformity but rather internal conformity with oneself.

Here is how Jung said it:

Identity: I use the term identity to denote a psychological conformity. It is always an unconscious phenomenon since a conscious conformity would necessarily involve a consciousness of two dissimilar things, and, consequently, a separation of subject and object, in which case the identity would already be abolished.

Going further than my original intent:

According to Jung and others, people do change within the boundaries of their persona where habits, skills and social flexibility are required. However, their Identity can only change slowly over time and often the requested change is beyond their reach.

People would find far more happiness and success celebrating who they are than always chasing the illusive iconic symbols of “maybe.” - by John Voris
Martha, I am too much aware of your professionalism, your commitment, your skill sets, and your excellent mind, to buy in to the notion that I'm talking above you. If I'm communicating in a style that does not register with you, then shame on me. All of the stuff John and I talk about come from the same world we all live in. We value language variations to a fault perhaps. But above you? Never.
I certainly agree with Gary.

With doing research, I naturally absorb various linguistic styles that cause nothing short of hysteria for those who are paid to edit my writing for public consumption.

I apologize for any inconvenience. This burden certainly rests with me. Thank you for your insight.

However, Gary does entice me to draw out my polished linguistic sabers occasionally, which I do of course for protection. - by John Voris
It has been said that our lives, characters, and experiences ultimately are functions of our frames (frames of mind). Would you agree?
Absolutely!!!

Here is a quote by L. Michael Hall that may be helpful:
"As we use our thoughts as frames of references, they put us into a particular frame of mind. We access a dynamic, self-organizing state. As we do, we bring and project the frames and feelings of the state onto everything."
Here is a related quote by William James:
"The greatest discovery of my generation is that human beings can alter their lives by altering their states of mind."
__________________
"Men are not disturbed by things, but by their estimate of things." - Marcus Aurelius - by Jeff Blackwell
Absolutely!!!

Here is a quote by L. Michael Hall that may be helpful:
Here is a related quote by William James:
Jeff, I agree with everything you offer here provided we are speaking of the persona as mentioned by Jung above.

Yes, "...human beings can alter their lives by altering their states of mind." But this alteration occurs from the physical constitution of human expression acquired through life experience but not the abstract core that enables our sustained sense of self.

I only say this because people need to be aware that there is a distinction between what can and cannot be changed within each of us.

What we can change is observable behavior but who we are intrinsically must remain the same. Otherwise we could never have relationships or stay on track focused on our goals. In fact we could not follow any goal directed path over time. - by John Voris
Maybe it's time someone played the experiential card in this discussion. We all live on the same planet as Jung, Hall, and James and we all live with our senses alive.Those are largely esoteric sources, NLP, metaphysics, spiritual/Eastern thought/non-Freudian psychology (Jung), and I personally have gained from the study of all. But we shouldn't discount our own observations as we walk this planet.

The original topic question was: It has been said that our lives, characters, and experiences ultimately are functions of our frames (frames of mind). Would you agree?

It would be very difficult for anyone not acquainted with NLP to address an NLP-derived statement such as that.

Jung, for instance was once asked if a person could truly understand himself without knowledge of the theory of archetypes.He said no.That's what we are talking about here, isn't it? It is difficult to believe what Jung said. It is difficult to believe that NLP practitioners have the definitive answer.

Seems fitting to quote Bruce Lee: "All knowledge is self knowledge."
- by Gary A Boye
Maybe it's time someone played the experiential card in this discussion. We all live on the same planet as Jung, Hall, and James and we all live with our senses alive.Those are largely esoteric sources, NLP, metaphysics, spiritual/Eastern thought/non-Freudian psychology (Jung), and I personally have gained from the study of all. But we shouldn't discount our own observations as we walk this planet.

The original topic question was: It has been said that our lives, characters, and experiences ultimately are functions of our frames (frames of mind). Would you agree?

It would be very difficult for anyone not acquainted with NLP to address an NLP-derived statement such as that.

Jung, for instance was once asked if a person could truly understand himself without knowledge of the theory of archetypes.He said no.That's what we are talking about here, isn't it? It is difficult to believe what Jung said. It is difficult to believe that NLP practitioners have the definitive answer.

Seems fitting to quote Bruce Lee: "All knowledge is self knowledge."
Yes. Experience is far more important than hypotheticals. thmbp2; - by John Voris
Jeff, I agree with everything you offer here provided we are speaking of the persona as mentioned by Jung above.
I was not specifically referencing a "persona" but instead the "frame games" that we play in our minds. - by Jeff Blackwell
I was not specifically referencing a "persona" but instead the "frame games" that we play in our minds.
Well, what is the distinction? Or better yet, what do you mean by "frame game?" - by John Voris
Well, what is the distinction? Or better yet, what do you mean by "frame game?"
Hello John. Allow me to quote L. Michael Hall in response to your question:
A game refers to all of the behaviors, actions, roles, rituals, even feelings that we play out in our everyday lives. As we engage in a set of patterned responses to another person, to our job, to food, to ideas, etc., we are playing a game. The external games that we play can be seen, heard, and felt by simply watching the actual things we do and say. The internal games are harder to catch, but just as real. We play mind games in our heads - these show up as patterned ways we think, perceive, interpret things, believe, value, etc. With this definition, we cannot not play games, With every mood, attitude, behavior, skill, role, ritual, etc. that we experience, we play out some game. The question now becomes, "What game are you playing?" - L. Michael Hall, Frame Games
- by Jeff Blackwell
Hello John. Allow me to quote L. Michael Hall in response to your question:

Jeff,

Here is the original question:

"It has been said that our lives, characters, and experiences ultimately are functions of our frames (frames of mind). Would you agree?"

For me, a living frame of mind is very different from a "frame game."

A frame of mind may be Family Devotion, which for me is not a game. How you express that devotion is eclectic and environment dependent making it unpredictable to the observer.

A game also has a strict set of rules and if so, that would be far too restrictive to meet the chaotic needs and swift changes life offers. We need to me flexible and not function as a set pattern of responses. Family Devotion would offer the criteria from which flexibility would flow.

The notion of "frame of mind" can find similarity with Jung's archetypes and persona concepts which is why I brought it up.

One last point, if I were to acquiesce to the "frame game" concept, the inner game dominates the external game as a manifestation of authentic individual. Our various external personas are socially driven making the external a virtual rendition of the real internal. - by John Voris
Weekly Updates!
Questions and Answers about Selling
Subscribe to our mailing list to get threads and posts sent to your email address weekly - Free of Charge.