Models

Myths are generally defined as false representations of reality. But in a sense all human representations of reality are deficient in some sense (we are not omniscient), therefore all representations of reality are myths.

I have often used myth in this second sense: as a perspective. But it has such negative connotations that I have decided to use MODEL instead.

For instance, science proposes models of reality (like the Bohr model of the atom). Progress in science is often understood as resulting in better models. But this is not always true, or at least, not always verifiable. It's a contentious and debated issue. I am not going to go into that right now.

What I want to say is that we all experience the world through models that we hold. However, the problem as I see it is that the word MODEL is thought to be static. Like the plastic model of the Cutty Sark that I built when I was in seventh grade. This is why Wittgenstein's use of Language Games, and Forms of Life, are closer to what I have in mind. They are more dynamic.

My struggle is that the phrase Forms of Life is obtuse to most people. Only Wittgensteinians understand it, and even we don't really understand it. Like a Form of Life, a model is an interpretive framework, but one that is fluid and changeable like a river. Parts of the river are changing at every second, but there are more stable elements such as the riverbed that usually change very slowly.

I don't like Worldview either, because it seems too monolithic. It also seems more tied to debates about theistic/atheistic worldviews. Whereas models differ depending on the subject. We can hold many models, and which one is relevant depends on what we are talking about. A skeptic can also be a libertarian, but these are two different models. Being a skeptic does not necessitate, or even imply, that one is also a libertarian.