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

Thu May 28 21:28:38 EDT 2020

My first  reaction:  I don't think "bent space time" is a metaphor.  I
don't use metaphor in thought because I know exactly what I "mean".  I'm
not even sure I use language in thought except when I'm planning an email,
for instance.

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:57 PM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm not sure I follow all the different sticking points this conversation
> has developed... but I'm gonna risk punch the tar baby anyway...
>
> I'm not sure Glen's point about "xyz" gets us very far. Sure, you can call
> anything you want by any label you want. I'm not sure anyone disputes that.
> But after that there remain three-ish different issues, which I think Nick
> tends to muddle:
>
> 1) The role of metaphor in communication.
> 2) The role of metaphor in thought.
> 3) The role of metaphor in science.
>
> Glen's example doesn't get us very far in any of those conversations,
> because it is an example, and literally any example is self-defeating in
> these contexts.
>
> The role of metaphor in communication: Glen want's us to understand that
> there are many situation like the one he described. He doesn't literally
> use "xyz" in all those cases, but it is like he has done that, in crucial
> ways. He also isn't always referring to a "green thing in the distance",
> but, again, it is like he has done that, in crucial ways. In order to
> effectively communicate his idea, he offered a metaphor... because they
>  make communication much easier.
>
> The role of metaphor in thought: Does Glen inherently think that way? I
> think the analysis would be similar.
>
> The role of metaphor in science: I'm not sure where this aspect is in the
> various conversations at the moment, but a particular strength of Nick's
> analysis of metaphor illuminating its role in science - both for better and
> for worse.  Scientific theories are metaphors that are meant to be taken
> very seriously ("Natural selection", "A snake eating its tail", "Bent space
> time", "The bystander effect", "Atomism", etc., etc.). We make the metaphor
> because we see a similarity between two situations, and we intend that
> metaphor to suggest other similarities that we have not witnessed. Because
> it is a metaphor, we don't intend an exact match, so there are intended
> non-similarities as well. The intended similarities are the things to be
> investigated. Something goes awry if people start investigating the
> non-similarities. For example, it would be silly if we had demanded Glen
> produce an example of when he had used "xyz" in the past to refer
> specifically to a "green thing in the distance". Glen didn't intend that
> aspect of his metaphor to be held up to such scrutiny (at least I do not
> think he intended it to be). Good metaphors function in common conversation
> without the need to hammer out such details explicitly, and typically
> without any intent to investigate the intended implication.
>
> Did I punch the tar baby enough? Am I hopelessly stuck? Or did I possibly
> help accomplish anything?
>
>
> P.S. I am very committed to Nick's understanding of how to understand
> metaphors, but abhor the notion that it is metaphor all the way down. There
> were once people who had to literally toe a literal line, and now there are
> people who metaphorically "toe the line", and anything that makes it seem
> like we will lose that distinction is highly problematic. Don't know if
> that's relevant, but since I've seen a few people in the thread talk about
> "Nick/EricC" I thought I'd mention that crucial difference.
> P.P.S. And a metaphorically "toe the line" might or might not be distinct
> from whatever dysfunctional thing is happening when wherein someone is said
> to "tow the line"... with the latter definitely being relevant to Glen's
> comments about the arbitrariness it all. Is it still a functional metaphor
> if someone writes "tow"?!? "Yes" in one sense, but obviously "no" in
> another.
>
>
> -----------
> Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
> Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist
> American University - Adjunct Instructor
> <echarles at american.edu>
>
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 4:53 PM David Eric Smith <desmith at santafe.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I second this.  The way Glen puts the point is exactly right.
>>
>> On May 28, 2020, at 11:14 PM, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Good, Glen.
>>
>> ---
>> Frank C. Wimberly
>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
>> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>>
>> 505 670-9918
>> Santa Fe, NM
>>
>> On Thu, May 28, 2020, 7:50 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll try again to describe why constant talk of metaphors is distracting
>>> nonsense, at least for me. When I use a word, that word is a variable bound
>>> to some context. We can bind any string of letters to any subset of any
>>> context. So, a string like "xyz" can be bound to "that green thing in the
>>> distance". Even *after* you and Joe or whoever later come to call "that
>>> green thing in the distance" by the string "tank", I can *still* call it an
>>> "xyz". I can do this for decades. "xyz" need have no other binding for
>>> which to "metaphorize". So, regardless of what *you* think when you read
>>> the string "xyz", I'm not using a metaphor when I say "xyz". You may think
>>> it's a metaphor until you're blue in the face. But I didn't use a metaphor.
>>> >8^D
>>>
>>> For me, a "strawman" has always meant that 1 single thing: rhetorical
>>> bad faith rewording. I've never used a straw man as a scare crow. I've
>>> never used it to train in combat. I've never used it to burn in effigy.
>>> I've never used it to mean anything but that one thing. So, therefore, it's
>>> not a metaphor. It's a meaningless string of characters bound to that one
>>> thing.
>>>
>>> Sure, *you* can read whatever I write however you *want* to read what I
>>> write. That's the very point of the
>>> privacy-despite-the-"holographic"-principle threads. How you read it CAN BE
>>> entirely unrelated to how I write it. When you *impute* metaphor status
>>> into arbitrary strings you see on your screen, you are *inscribing* your
>>> own understanding of the world *onto* the thing you're looking at. You are
>>> *not* blank-slate, receiving a message.
>>>
>>> Now, if you listened empathetically, you might choose to *ask* the
>>> author "Did you mean that as a metaphor?" You could even be a bit rude and
>>> continue with "Or are you too stupid to know the history of that string of
>>> characters?" This is a common thing. E.g. when someone uses a string of
>>> characters they grew up with to innocently refer to, say, a marginalized
>>> group, without *knowing* the marginalized group thinks that string of
>>> characters is offensive. Like wearing a Washington Red Skins jersey. Or
>>> when a 12 year old white kid sings along with some rap lyrics.
>>>
>>> You have options when you decode a string. It doesn't always need to be
>>> metaphorical. Even if, deep down, you're a complete pedant and you
>>> absolutely must point out that everything's always a metaphor, you CAN
>>> suppress that need for a little while ... sometimes ... just sometimes ...
>>> you have that power.
>>>
>>> So, no. Strawman is not a metaphor. If it helps you, I can stop using
>>> the string "strawman" and use "xyz" for that fallacy from now on. Please
>>> avoid the xyz fallacy.
>>>
>>> On 5/27/20 12:03 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
>>> > [...] “Strawman” is a metaphor, right? [...]
>>> >
>>> > The example of “strawman” is a wonderful example of a failure of a
>>> metaphor at the first state.  We did not all get the same “image” when it
>>> was first deployed.  That failure is instructive for me because it reminds
>>> me that the familiar assertion that M is a metaphor for X is incomplete.
>>> Explictly, or implicitly, there must always be a third argument.  For
>>> 0bservor O, M is a metaphor for X.  In other words, we must be humble in
>>> our use of metaphors.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ☣ uǝlƃ
>>>
>>> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. .
>>> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
>>> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>>
>> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. .
>> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. .
>> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>

-- 
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200528/bd194759/attachment.html>