[FRIAM] the role of metaphor in scientific thought

Steven A Smith sasmyth at swcp.com
Fri Jun 23 14:39:00 EDT 2017


Stephen -
> For catholics, a confirmed unmarried man might be different than a 
> confirmed bachelor .
being an unmarried man but not a Catholic, Confirmed or otherwise, I am 
not a bachelor, though my current lifestyle mimics many of the qualities 
of the canonical (but not Canonized) confirmed bachelor. I did, however, 
attend Catholic Mass for over 15 years, and raised two daughters under 
the Catholic Catechism up to (but not quite including) their 
Confirmation.   I am still drawn (for reasons unknown) to women raised 
Catholic... perhaps I was overly influenced by Billy Joel's apprehension 
of Catholic Girls in "Only the Good Die Young".

<random personal anecdote>

    In my specific case, the Catholic Church declared my only
    legal/religious marriage null and void just about the time my
    daughters, the issue of that (non)Marriage, were about to accept
    Confirmation into the Catholic Church.... somehow the Church's
    retroactive declaration that no Marriage had existed between their
    parents, now officially Bastards, gave my impressionable daughters
    the perfect excuse to decline Confirmation.  I do believe neither of
    them have attended Mass even once in the intervening 25 years.   I
    myself, despite not being a Confirmed Catholic did attend Mass (and
    listened thoughtfully) for 15 years and have in fact returned for
    special occasions (weddings, funerals, baptisms, confirmations).  In
    the spirit of hair-splitting terminology, I tend to ask those who
    were raised (and usually Confirmed) Catholic but no longer
    practicing if they are "Escaped", "Reformed", or "Recovering"
    Catholics.  I doubt those three terms cover the space fully, but
    seem to provide some pretty good sampling.   Most have used the term
    "Recovering" but many are taken aback by the alternatives and the
    nuances implied.

</anecdote

This is why I split hairs about terminology... or maybe my hairsplitting 
of such terms is why I think the way I do?

A woman once asked me "do you love me because I am beautiful or am I 
beautiful because you love me?"   I answered the only way possible: 
"Yes!"  It should also be noted that we have neither married nor 
divorced, and I still think she is beautiful.

- Sleeve
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Stephen.Guerin at Simtable.com <mailto:stephen.guerin at simtable.com>
> CEO, Simtable http://www.simtable.com <http://www.simtable.com/>
> 1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505
> office: (505)995-0206 mobile: (505)577-5828
> twitter: @simtable
>
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:wimberly3 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Has anybody mentioned that there are lot of unmarried men that you
>     usually wouldn't call bachelors? There are widowers, priests, and
>     nineteen year-olds, for example.  I learned the word because my
>     father's brother was a thirty-five year old Major in the Air Force
>     with no wife. He eventually got married and had children. Late
>     bloomer?
>
>     Frank
>
>     Frank Wimberly
>     Phone (505) 670-9918 <tel:%28505%29%20670-9918>
>
>     On Jun 22, 2017 11:34 PM, "gepr ⛧" <gepropella at gmail.com
>     <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         But the difference isn't merely rhetorical. If we take the
>         setup seriously, that the unmarried patient really doesn't
>         know the other names by which his condition is known, then
>         there are all sorts of different side effects that might
>         obtain. E.g. if the doctor tells him he's a bachelor, he might
>         google that and discover bachelor parties. But if the doctor
>         tells him he is "single", he might discover single's night at
>         the local pub.
>
>         My point was not only the evocation of various ideas, but also
>         the side effects of various (computational) paths.
>
>
>         On June 22, 2017 7:00:55 PM PDT, Eric Charles
>         <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com
>         <mailto:eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>> wrote:
>         >Glen said: "So, the loop of unmarried <=> bachelor has
>         information in
>         >it,
>         >even if the only information is (as in your example), the guy
>         learns
>         >that
>         >because the condition has another name, perhaps there are
>         other ways of
>         >thinking about it ... other _circles_ to use."
>         >
>         >This reminds me that, in another context, Nick complained to
>         me quite a
>         >bit
>         >about Peirce's asserting that that any concept was simply a
>         collection
>         >of
>         >conceived "practical" consequences. He felt that the term
>         "practical"
>         >was
>         >unnecessary, and lead to confusions. I think this is a good
>         example of
>         >why
>         >Peirce used that term, and felt it necessary.
>         >
>         >Perice would point out that the practical consequences of being
>         >"unmarried"
>         >are identical to the practical consequences of being "a
>         bachelor."
>         >Thus,
>         >though the spellings be different, there is only one idea at
>         play there
>         >(in
>         >Peirce-land... if we are thinking clearly). This is the
>         tautology that
>         >Nick
>         >is pointing at, and he isn't wrong.
>         >
>         >And yet, Glen is still clearly correct that using one term or
>         the other
>         >may
>         >more readily invoke certain ideas in a listener. Those aren't
>         practical
>         >differences in Peirce's sense- they are not differences in
>         practice
>         >that
>         >would achieve if one tested the unique implications of one
>         label or the
>         >other (as there are no contrasting unique implications). The
>         value of
>         >having the multiple terms is rhetorical, not logical.
>         >
>         >What to do with such differences..............
>
>         --
>         ⛧glen⛧
>
>         ============================================================
>         FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>         Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>         to unsubscribe
>         http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>         <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
>         FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>         <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>     ============================================================
>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>     Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>     to unsubscribe
>     http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>     <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
>     FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>     <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170623/eeca2ed2/attachment.html>


More information about the Friam mailing list