A gryphon and her marten daemon

What is a mental framework? Put simply, a mental framework, or sometimes mental schema, is a tool your brain relies on to organize information. It works as a filter to make the world more comprehensible by organizing sensations, thoughts, and other data points into predetermined "frames" or paradigms.

For example, you have a framework for what a "chair" is. A chair may be any object with four legs you sit on, though notably this definition includes horses and exclude constructions with three or fewer legs many would still consider to be a chair. Still, it's likely you are able to discern what a chair is and isn't even if you can't articulate it by a simple definition, and even though some chairs may also be benches or stools or etc. Your framework for "chair" is quickly retrievable and adaptable; you can usually identify a chair despite the fact that chairs can look vastly different, and many chairs you have never seen before. If you encounter an object you do not immediately know to be a chair, your framework of "chair" can be updated to include the new object.

What is a platonic ideal? In contrast to a mental framework, Plato's Plane of Forms posits that there is a metaphysical, absolute and unchangeable "essence" to all things that determines how the object can be categorized. So, a chair is a chair because it imitates the abstract Chair Form-the Idea of a chair that exists outside of our thoughts and prescribes what a chair is and isn't. A horse cannot be a chair because a horse imitates the Horse Form. How either of these things are defined is somewhat immaterial because both horse and chair exist metaphysically and beyond the input of the human (or nonhuman) mind. What the hell does any of this have to do with therianthropy? Well, I would argue that the way definitional culture works on tumblr and the way we generally describe identity groups falls much closer in line with Plato's Plane of Forms than it does with the idea of a mental framework.

We sometimes discuss the concept of therianthropy as though it's a Thing that Exists, even intangibly, and thus it's something you either Are or Are Not. Our language around "awakening" and "discovering" our therianthropy echoes this, as though therianthropy is something latent within us or that we're born into (echoing "born this way" sentiment common in the queer community). And certainly that is the experience some may have, but I don't think it's a useful paradigm to understand therianthropy as a whole through. Therianthropy was not discovered in the 90s, but instead the language was created to articulate an experience and therianthropy (the language, the community, the concept itself) has continued to evolve and iterate, much in the same way a mental framework adapts to new information.

How is any of this applied? Put simply, I'm suggesting that the community think a bit more critically about how therianthropy, and nonhumanity broadly, is framed. As I said in my initial post, I am not a therian because there is a Therian Form that I contain some essence of; I don't believe such a thing exists. I understand myself to be a therian because it's how I make sense of certain experiences, thoughts, sensations and because I relate to the experiences of others who have taken on the label. It is (one of) my framework(s) for how I understand myself. It communicates certain things about me such as:

I identify as a nonhuman animal in some way

I align myself with others who identify as a therian

I express certain elements of myself through the "performance"* of therianthropy

I filter my lived experience to some degree through the lens of my therian identity

In my original post I described therianthropy as a "mode of meaning making for clusters of experiences and thought processes" and I think this is the best way to describe it. I have certain experiences and thoughts, and therianthropy is my mental framework for processing and understanding them. I don't have the experiences because I am a therian, but rather I am a therian because it's how I choose to categorize the experiences.

In my estimation, a good deal of the common discourse can be eliminated by understanding therianthropy in this way. Validity/"more therian than thou" discourse can be forgotten because it's ultimately a choice to describe one's self in this way, and because there is no One Ultimate Therian we are each whatever degree away from. Even debate about physical nonhumans can hopefully go by the wayside, because these are really just small modifications that communicate something about the other's framework, generally that they include some degree of somatic experience or input as relevant to their therianthropic schema (specifics will obviously vary).

We all speak very concretely about these words, and while the history of the community should not be forgotten, it's important to remember that the framework for therianthropy has always evolved and will continue to evolve! We can update our framework along with it and find more accurate language as the community continues into the future.

*note that "performance" here is used in a similar way as the way gender is characterized as a performance. Performing therianthropy may look like wearing a theta delta necklace, running a therian blog, or simply calling one's self a therian. It is any external expression of a therian identity.