The onto-graphic gravity of frames

Continuing from this post, recall Bryant's criticism of Zizek here, which I turned around on Bryant. And which I think applies to the integral movement as a whole. The way it's framed and disseminated, its onto-graphic gravity, who are they reaching? It seems aimed at the ivory tower, which has little effect in the political sphere. Sure there's a populist movement, but quite honestly that is seen as a religious cult to most outside it. For the most part it stays in its own bubble. I commend those in the movement who are engaging in activism, but again, framing it in AQAL is off putting and doesn't connect. I'm trying to take cues from Lakoff and even the conservative Luntz and using frames that are more effective and get the job done. The job, in this case, is influencing voting and activism behavior.


Framing, by the way, is embodied (and real) communicative infrastructure in onto-graphic terms, affecting us below the ideological and symbolic. This is often missed by not only the liberal but by the integralite, both of whom assume if we just state facts and/or give them a new ideology (or model) that is enough. Not even close. Even Maher, the ultimate liberal, is finally catching on (with his usual humorous twist).