[FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

[Steven A Smith]

/*NST -*/
>
> */[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] /*
>
I wish I could stop splitting hairs with you, but it seems /built into/ 
this discussion (another metaphor, really?)!  I understand "domain" to 
modify "source" and "target" to make it clear that what is being 
discussed/considered/reasoned/intuited upon may be bigger than a single 
"thing".  Perhaps the over-used onion needn't be referred to as more 
than a source (or target) but if I were invoking a garden or landscape  
*source* it is important that I'm talking about the whole ensemble of 
likely/possible gardens or landscapes.  With onions, it seems easier to 
imagine a singular canonical onion (unless your field of study is the 
inner life of Alliums).   in fact when the humble Onion was first 
invoked, I immediately abstracted (in my mind) to "bulb" with a nice big 
fat juicy vidalia onion as the prototype of the moment for my 
consideration, but including a wide range of bulbs, some more edible 
than others.   We could certainly use "source" and "target" as shorthand 
if we accept that the object of each is something more general/abstract 
than a specific object.

If I read your gripe with "conceptual metaphor" correctly, it is that 
"conception" already suggests ("grasping together") the metaphor?   I 
use "conceptual metaphor" to specifically imply that the "target" 
(domain) is in a more conceptual/abstract realm than literal/concrete.   
the "source" (domain) may also be relatively abstract but I think for 
utility is in some sense "closer to literal, or concrete" than the 
target.   From Lakoff/Nunez, ultimately these layered/stacked metaphors 
ground out in human perceptions... things we apprehend directly with our 
senses...

"The price of nonsense in America has /risen/ in 2017" - /Rising/ is 
from the conceptual domain of /directionality /which has affiliation 
with the domain of simple geometry, and perhaps is apprehended more 
directly perceptually by a human by our inner ear and other measures of 
the gravity gradient.   I don't know if YOU feel an empty spot in your 
gut when "the bottom of the stock market drops out", or a sense of 
"elation" when the local housing bubble "elevates the value of your 
family home" or not, I think many do.
>
> 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] /*
>
"Domain" is almost certainly a "borrow word" from another <ahem> domain, 
that perhaps of political/economic/military control/influence.  But then 
so seems "source" (as in a spring is the source of a creek) and "target" 
(keep your eye on the target and your aim steady!).    I think that very 
little of our language is not metaphorical, even if our awareness of it 
as such is numbed by common usage.   "numbed", "usage", "awareness" 
(perceptual v. conceptual?)
>
> 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] /*
>
Being one of those who is /chasing this rabbit,/ I'm not sure I am 
intending to disparage anything... more likely give us /an out/ if we 
realize we are discussing something of lesser interest/relevance and 
/losing sight/ of the topic we were originally more interested in?   As 
you can tell I am /game for/ (overly so?) discussing the meaning and 
implications of the language we use, I'm just wondering if this is the 
branch of the /branching/ discussion we are most interested in?
>
> *//*
>
> 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. /*
>
I will give that a go, you have referenced it before and I expect it 
might be a good /test case/ for some of our other /testiness/ here 
<grin>.   I'm all for tidying metaphors where it is useful.
>
> */ 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 think that doing so in October might still be very 
interesting/useful.   The /point/, of course, is to move it /offline/ to 
a more /committed/ and /embodied/ and less asynchronous /setting/ to see 
how it /unfolds/ differently.
>
> *//*
>
>  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] /*
>
Great suggestions, we'll see if any of them /bite/!

Metaphorically (and aphorismically) yours,
  - Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170612/43853c0a/attachment.html>