Frames and Reference

Descriptive philosophy greatest accomplishments is in further refining the things we already know. If philosophy is doing its job, we should upon hearing a nugget of its knowledge, exclaim, "Well, that sounds about right". Here's an example from Peter Strawson ...

Upon hearing a story from another person

The hearer, in the example, is able to place the particular referred to within the picture painted by the speaker. This means that in a sense he can place the particular in his own general picture of the world. For he can place the speaker, and hence thespeaker's picture, in that general picture of his own. But he cannot place the figures, without the frame, of the speaker's picture in hisown general picture of the world. For this reason the full requirement for hearer's identification is not satisfied.

Simple, none too controversial. We frame those things that we hear from other people. Everytime someone tells you a story, we put a little cognitive frame over that person's story. If we steal that persons story for ourselves and delude oursleves into thinking it is real, we lose the frame.

Here's a question. When we watch CNN, do we frame the action we see? The event has actually occured though not in front of our eyes. But, the camera is itself just another eye. After all, it is a piece of equiptment designed to process light rays so our brain can in turn process them to form images. As is the eye. We should have no superstitiious prejudice because one is 'natural' and the other is not. It is just 2nd level image processing as it must go from TV lens to eye to brain, but is this enough to qualify it as a cognitive frame? For all purposes, we have witnessed the event as sure as we are standing there.

I would say we don't cognitively frame these events, as the fact they are relayed through TV is irrelevant to our understanding of the action in the event. In order to understand someone's story we must keep in mind (frame) that that person has witnessed it, not I. This framing is unneccesary to understand televised footage, as you can understand the action first hand with reference only to your sensory experience. Of course, it is a lie to say you actually were at the spot it took place, but its not a lie to say you saw the event. So, in a way, we all have been to the (and, every) SuperBowl ever since it became a televised event. And, I saw the Berlin Wall fall.

Does the same hold true for a performance of music on the radio? Should we allow our eyes but not the ears cognitive priority?