Helene,

I really like the way you put this about contradictory beliefs existing in a "complex though not necessarily consistent family of frames." I would think that the emergence of one of these conflicting beliefs within a particular frame or network would in part be "context-dependent." So if one morning I'm interacting with a women ( or simply imaging the same) who seems to me to act hurt by my strength, my old worry about hurting women (as I thought I hurt my mother) if I'm strong might likely become activated.

However, that same afternoon, if I experience a friend as enboldened and more secure by my being strong, my earlier activated worry, based an my old belief, would likely recede into the background and I would join your man Wittgenstein in thinking, my world as a happy woman in the afternoon is indeed different from my morning world in which I was inhabited by my unhappy worried state with its associated network of guilty/shameful feelings, thoughts, somatic clenching, and imagined scenarios. I can see where this kind of view might seem perspectival- or approaching a complex systems' view.

So would you please say more about your concern that you may be sliding too close to a post-modernist solipsism?

I ask because I think assumptions underpin any point of view. So you raise an interesting question about our CM assumptions as you offer this interesting expansion of multiple, possibly conflicting or contradictory beliefs, which I view as relationally, context dependent whether actually interacting with someone or alone in one's room with one's own imagination.

Judy