[FRIAM] Metaphor [POSSIBLE DISTRACTON FROM]: privacy games

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Yes, we did come to an agreement about the steelman. Sorry for not being clear. When you identified "strawman" as a metaphor in response to Steve's post, I did not detect an application of that identification to the *context* of Steve's post. How does identifying "strawman" as a metaphor help us understand Steve's criticism of what I'm calling 3rd order privacy? Or, if you're not really following the ordering, then how does identifying "strawman" as a metaphor contribute to the analysis of what the EricC/Nick principle implies?

What I need is some *application* of the technique. In order to discuss the practical implications of some string being a metaphor, it has to be tied to a particular context. Here, the context is "how to build privacy from the EricC/Nick principle".

But by saying I don't believe you, what I mean is that I *think* you want to build a *theoretical* (not practical, as yet anyway) construct of metaphorical analyses ... some sort of generally applicable (maybe even universal) method by which to parse a text (or any exposition like a video) by the metaphors it contains. And such a theoretical thing is fantastic! I'd love it. But don't pretend to be deducing consequences when you're actually inducing theories ... well, actually, it's fine if you do that. 8^) Just expect that if I spot it, I'll call you out on it.

As for *how* you might use the steelman to communicate with someone like Frank, I hid in a previous post that my point is to demonstrate that *privacy* might be built from the steelman principle you agreed to. And if you eventually agree to this accretion of privacy strength, then you will be able to grant Frank *privacy* without granting an unobservable interiority. The 1,2,3,...,n orders are intended to provide a fine-grained point where you and someone like Frank can say "There! Right there is where we disagree."

If my construction fails to provide that, then I've failed in the project. (Which is fine by me. It may seem like I'm invested. But I'm not. I don't believe the principle at all, as I've already stated. But it's a fun game to play while I babysit my simulations and watch metaphor-laden youtube videos by parasocial friends like ContraPoints.)


On 5/28/20 10:34 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> I will be the first to admit that constantly in danger of drowning in this flood, and may, therefore, be grasping at anything I see floating near me.  I regret that the discussion's between you, Jon, and EricS are often -- usually -- utterly lost on me -- I experience that as a lost opportunity.  
> 
> I thought, however, that I did understand, endorse, and even adopt to some degree your meaning of "inside"  and even think up my own example of it -- the case where the numerals in a colorblindness chart are different for different observers but "in" the chart for both of them.  I do believe that that is NOT what Frank, and Bruce, and others mean by inside, so, while it may me to communicate with you, it does not help me to communicate  with them.  

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ