[FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

[Nick Thompson]

We are NOT splitting hairs.  We are getting clear.  See below.

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 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 3:35 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

 

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. 

[NST==>No, I am going to hang tough on this one. The work you are describing is exactly the work necessary to unpack a metaphor and it cannot be done by handwaving to a domain.  Notice below that you did not abstract the Vidalia, you just chose another onion.  The same is true of science as it is in poetry – the best metaphors are specific metaphors.  <==nst] 

 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.[NST==>No way Jose!  I think this domain talk will lead to blather.<==nst]  

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...   

[NST==> Precisely what I am objecting to.  A metaphor brings one experience to bear upon another.  Abstrctions, whatever they are, are not experiences. <==nst] 



"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.

[NST==>In Britain, when they hang you, they put you in a little room, they put a noose around your neck, and then the bottom drops out.  That’s my source for a stock market crash.  <==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] 

"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.

[NST==>Thank you.  There is no kindness that can be given to a scholar more than to read his work.  <==nst] 





 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.

[NST==>Of course.  That too.  We used to meet in coffee houses.  <==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] 

Great suggestions, we'll see if any of them bite!

[NST==>You can only ask!  <==nst] 



Metaphorically (and aphorismically) yours,
 - Steve

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170612/3f0e5442/attachment.html>