[FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

[Nick Thompson]

Steve, 

 

This is helpful.  See below. 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 12:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

 

FWIW 

In my parlance (I think well informed by formal usage),  A conceptual metaphor has a source and a target domain.  The target domain is the domain one is trying to understand/explain by comparison to the source domain.   The source domain is considered the image donor.  We use the familiar source to help us reason about the more abstract or unfamiliar target.

[NST==>I like “source” and “target”.  Let’s use these terms here on out.  “Domain” is probably unnecessary, and might lead to hand-waving.  I still hate “conceptual metaphor” as introducing potential for confusion.  Anytime you say “This thing is a That” you are invoking a conception – a “grasping-together”.   <==nst] 

In the example at hand,  Glen invoked "an Onion" as the source domain in a metaphor to try to understand the more general and abstract target domain of layer.  Other source domains (deposition layers, skin, geology) were offered as well to offer conceptual parallax on this.

[NST==>See how you suddenly got wobbly when you started using the word “domain”?  “Domain” is another metaphor and would require its own specification.  <==nst] 

I'm not sure if this is a rabbit hole 

[NST==>Another metaphor, often used in such discussions (eg Owen’s “Troll” troll. ) to disparage attempts to clarify what a group of people is actually talking about.  <==nst] 

we fell down when we began to try to sort levels from layers.  I think the distinction is critical to the discussion (which is now nearly lost in this forest of trees of levels and layers?) but is not the discussion itself.   We digress within our digressions.

Jenny and Dave and I are discussing amongst ourselves a live in-person "salon" of sorts to be held at Jenny's (in Santa Fe) on the the general topic of Models, Metaphors, and Analogy.    Jenny and I have elected Dave to try to lead this, Jenny is providing chairs and shade.   I'm pulsing the locals for interest in participating... I'm only sorry Nick and Roger and Glen are so far away right now.   Got any (other) locals interested in chatting face to face on these topics?   Wimberly?  Guerin?  

[NST==>Oh, Gosh!  That I should miss this.  I would hope that at some point you would have a look my article <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228580530_Shifting_the_natural_selection_metaphor_to_the_group_level>  on the confusions arising from the application of the natural selection metaphor to groups.  It’s a testy, difficult argument, with an unexpected and interesting result.  I wouldn’t expect anybody to load it entirely, but I do think it’s a good example of how tidying up metaphors can lead to a better understanding of issues.  Given that so many potentially absent people are interested, I would recommend organizing the conversation around a list.  If you haven’t done this by the time I get back in October, I could promise to organize a “seminar” of the “city university of santa Fe” on “scientific metaphors: their uses; their perils”.  We would meet regularly for a couple of hours.  There would be readings.   <==nst] 

 I'm feeling the same juice as some our impromptu meetups BEFORE FriAM became a formal deal!   We could sure use Mike Agar about now![NST==>Of course Steve and Frank. They might or might not, be interested. As you know, one man’s passion is another man’s bullshit.    Jon Zingale, for sure.  Jenny’s partner would contribute a lot from his understanding of Peirce’s abduction, which is closely but ambiguously related to metaphor making. Jim Gattiker is a great seminar participant … mind like a steel trap … but don’t know whether this would interest him.  Sean Mood is another great seminar participant.   <==nst] 

Do any of you old men (or women) of this august body have a copy of Wheelwright's 1962 "Metaphor and Reality" you are ready to give up?  I'm missing my copy... not sure where it got off to!  Did I maybe miss finding one in your stash when you left SFe, REC?

- Steve

On 6/12/17 9:36 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:

Thanks for asking.
 
Well, I still don't know what y'all mean when you say "metaphor" because the meaning seems to vary.  E.g. you say "a metaphor like 'layer'", indicating that 'layer' is the metaphor.  Yet you also say things like "onion metaphor", indicating that onions are the metaphor.  But, as I tried to say earlier, I don't regard onions as a metaphor.  They are simply a thing we can analyze using _either_ the concept of levels (strict ordering) or the concept of layers (more flexible organization).  So, the concept of metaphors isn't useful to me, there.
 
However, I do think a metaphor consists of 2 analogs (real things like rocks or onions) and the analogy between them.  So, I can see "metaphor" meaning a) just 2 analogs, b) just the relation/analogy, without the analogs, or with implicit/schematic analogs, or c) all 3: 2 analogs plus their relation(s).  So, if that's what you're asking for, I do like "exhibiting particulate deposition" as the relationship/analogy.  For the 2 analogs, we can choose, as I said: 1) coral deposition and, say, diffusion limited aggregation.
 
So, the metaphor would be DLA ⇔ coral.  And that analogy should help identify why "layer" is a more general analysis concept than "levels".
 
 
On 06/12/2017 08:23 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Explicating a metaphor like "layer" is  for me a serious and important art.  It starts, I think, by the metaphor maker identifying his absolute favorite example of a layer situation.  The situation that unequivocably instantiates "layers".  The next step will be to identify in the plainest way possible the crucial features of this example ... what makes it such a good example of "layers".  Then, and only then does it make sense to apply the metaphor to the situation we are trying to elucidate with it.  
 
It seems to me that the onion metaphor is not perhaps what everybody has in mind, because the layers of an onion are more or less independent of one another.   But I shouldn’t try to speak for you. 

 
 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170612/49a92149/attachment.html>