Communication Frames — Three Lenses for Different Audiences
Pedagogical note — how to explain the Worn Path to different kinds of thinkers. April 2026.
The Problem
The Worn Path has a communication challenge: its arguments draw on game theory, philosophy, design, housing policy, and community organizing. Different people engage with ideas through different modes, and explaining the desire-path principle to a system-builder requires a fundamentally different rhetorical approach than explaining it to someone in existential crisis.
Three existing frameworks map the relevant dimensions. Each answers a different question.
Smith’s Six Types — What Role Does Philosophy Play?
From Justin E.H. Smith, The Philosopher: A History in Six Types (2016). See Smith’s Six Types — A Meta-Framework.
Smith classifies the social position a philosopher occupies: Curiosus (fascinated by particulars), Sage (master of cultural reasoning), Gadfly (critic of society), Ascetic (bodily discipline as path), Mandarin (institutional professional), Courtier (entangled with power). The question: what is this person’s relationship to philosophy as a social activity?
For the course: Smith organizes which traditions and thinkers get taught together. A Sage and a Gadfly from different cultures are more usefully compared than two thinkers from the same culture occupying different roles.
Thomson’s Five Archetypes — How Does This Person Think?
From Jonny Thomson, “Which of the 5 Philosophical Archetypes Best Describes You?” (Big Think / Mini Philosophy, 2026).
Thomson classifies argumentative style: Sphinx (interrogates through questions — Socratic method), Leviathan (builds comprehensive systems — Aristotle, Hegel, Marx), Kitsune (uses paradox, irony, shapeshifting — Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Derrida), Minotaur (driven by existential anguish, trapped in a labyrinth not of their making), Garuda (clarifies — cuts through confusion to reveal what’s actually going on). The question: how does this person engage with ideas?
Most people are composites, shifting between archetypes by context. Thomson explicitly frames these as styles of being in the world, not just styles of argument.
For the course: Thomson maps how to communicate the Worn Path’s arguments to different audiences. The same core idea — say, Commons Enclosure — lands differently depending on whether your audience wants systematic proof (Leviathan), wants you to sit with the grief of what was lost (Minotaur), wants to interrogate your assumptions (Sphinx), wants to play with the paradoxes (Kitsune), or wants the clear version with no fog (Garuda).
Sacred Pathways — How Does This Person Connect?
From Gary Thomas, Sacred Pathways (1996/2020). See Sacred Pathways.
Thomas classifies modes of connection to meaning: Naturalist, Sensate, Traditionalist, Ascetic, Activist, Caregiver, Enthusiast, Contemplative, Intellectual. The question: how does this person experience belonging and purpose?
For the course and for Wellspring: Sacred Pathways maps which experiences of community resonate. An Activist needs to see the Worn Path as a justice project. A Contemplative needs to see it as a depth project. An Intellectual needs the theoretical architecture. A Caregiver needs to see who gets helped. The same community, framed nine different ways.
How These Interact
Smith organizes what philosophy does (social role). Thomson organizes how philosophers communicate (argumentative method). Sacred Pathways organizes how people connect (experiential mode).
They operate on different axes and combine multiplicatively. A Gadfly (Smith) who thinks like a Kitsune (Thomson) and connects through Activism (Sacred Pathways) needs a very different version of the Worn Path than a Sage who thinks like a Leviathan and connects through Contemplation.
The Exercise
A future project: write key Worn Path arguments (the desire-path principle, cooperation as dominant strategy, commons enclosure, relational identity) through different Thomson archetype frames, targeted at different Sacred Pathways modes. Not 270 permutations — but enough representative combinations to surface which framings reveal things about the arguments that the default framing obscures.
The hypothesis: the exercise of translating between frames will expose assumptions and gaps in the arguments themselves. If you can’t explain commons enclosure to a Minotaur (someone in anguish about what’s been lost), you might not understand the emotional stakes well enough. If you can’t explain it to a Garuda (someone who wants clarity), you might be hiding behind complexity. If you can’t explain it to a Kitsune (someone who’ll poke at your paradoxes), your logic might have holes.