<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>I can accept that different systems have some shared structure expressible with a hypergraph, but not that there is any one entry point node or partition that should be considered especially informative. If knowledge of some of the properties of connectivity isn\u2019t operationally useful, then what is the point? It seems to me the main thing that partial knowledge provides is something to build consensus around \u2013 like inventing a religion for the sake of imposing social controls.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of glen <gepropella@gmail.com><br><b>Date: </b>Tuesday, March 17, 2026 at 8:55\u202fAM<br><b>To: </b>friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com><br><b>Subject: </b>[FRIAM] essentialism (was A bold meteorological theory)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>No, "metaphor" isn't essential to anything, because the word has so many disparate meanings, it's borderline useless.<br><br>By contrast, a can opener is empirically/functionally/mappingly well-defined. Either a device opens cans or it doesn't. Well, at first blush, it seems defined. But maybe not. E.g. a sledge hammer opens cans. Would sledge hammers be essential if all your food was in cans? Sure, we all know what you meant. And you shouldn't have to actually *say* what you meant. Right?<br><br>What set of functions well defines metaphor? There are candidates for such a set {heuristic, catechresis, rhetoric, constitutive, didactic, exploration}, with varying overlap. But those are all perfectly good words. Why not use them? At the very least, prefix such to the "metaphor" token.<br><br>As usual, I don't ask questions for which I'm not prepared to hear the answers. The reason people don't use their words is because they're lazy and sloppy. They don't want the formality. They want the liberty to say things in sloppy ways and elicit head nods from the choir. Careful language invites criticism and agonism. Echo chambers and filter bubbles abound. Can't we all just get along, gloss over the detail, signal the virtues? Pffft.<br><br>I don't enjoy being so dismissive. There is a fundamental problem with the super-sub class hierarchy thing implied by lumping the 6 functions above into a category named "metaphor". That's why I got the Quine atom tattoo. But Lilith save me, I get so tired of people expecting agreement with their sloppy language. No wonder AI psychosis is a thing.<br><br>On 3/17/26 5:19 AM, Prof David West wrote:<br>> I certainly do not disagree with your main point: metaphor is a tool. However, I might ask, if all your food is stored in metal cans, might a can opener, a mere tool, be an important, even essential, tool? I think that this is Quine's point re: the fringe of science.<br>> <br>> davew<br>> <br>> <br>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2026, at 6:57 PM, glen wrote:<br>>> I suppose it depends on the structure of the space. If all roads lead<br>>> to Rome, then it doesn't matter. Any set of lies will do just fine. But<br>>> if it's pathological, then hopping roads is a necessary skill. I make<br>>> no claims to that metaphysical knowledge. I'm only pointing out that<br>>> metaphor is a neutral tool, not something to be ogled in awe. Metaphor<br>>> is no more nor less fascinating than, say, a spatula. If I had a friend<br>>> who constantly yapped about how cool their spatula was ... and every<br>>> conversation wound down to spatula this and spatula that, I'd have to<br>>> push back a bit and say that not everything's about your spatula.<br>>> Please talk about something else.<br>>><br>>> Whether the spatula is used for ill or good depends on the wielder.<br>>><br>>> On 3/16/26 12:16 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:<br>>>> Different canals could be in frustration, so I suppose it isn\u2019t quite as bad as you say?<br>>>><br>>>> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of glen <gepropella@gmail.com><br>>>> *Date: *Monday, March 16, 2026 at 11:45\u202fAM<br>>>> *To: *friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com><br>>>> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] A bold meteorological theory<br>>>><br>>>> I don't see how that could be true. At best, metaphor is a means to keep one in a canal *and* a means of escaping a canal. And that it's both means neither usage is a property of metaphor. I think it's better to state that metaphor is a means of escaping *reality* ... to say things that are not true ... lying, falsehood.<br>>>><br>>>> Of course, some lies/falsehoods can be good. When a science popularizer lies about, say, entanglement in order to provide *some* type of intuition the laity demands ... maybe that's a good thing. The liar may justify their lies in claiming that lie set A is "better" than lie set B. (Or maybe it's a bad thing.) But metaphor is a liar's tool. Attempts to rehabilitate it are the essence of postmodernism (at least as *that* concept is bastardized by the laity).<br>>>><br>>>> Of course, those of us who are OK with being called a _liar_ have no problem with this. But there are those amongst us who blanch at being called a liar even as they lie, the epitome of Bad Faith, reflective or not.<br>>>><br>>>> On 3/16/26 11:04 AM, Prof David West wrote:<br>>>>> Metaphorically stated, unfortunately: a metaphor is just a means for escaping local minima and channelization.<br>>>>><br>>>>> davew<br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2026, at 8:55 AM, glen wrote:<br>>>>>> That's some good advice, there. Narratives like the naked Emperor are<br>>>>>> crucial tools for posers and con men. Each and every metaphor you<br>>>>>> identify in a missive is evidence of the authors' (plural possessive -<br>>>>>> no such thing as a sole author) Bad Faith. And the number of metaphors<br>>>>>> is directly correlated with the extent of the Bad Faith.<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> None of us are innocent. None of us are the child in the narrative.<br>>>>>> It's a venomous fiction, injected by the fangs of the storyteller. Even<br>>>>>> literal babies bring along their own "genetic memory", in utero<br>>>>>> accretion, biases, and expertise. The story, that story and all others,<br>>>>>> is there to persuade, to trick you, to canalize you into thinking in<br>>>>>> some particular set of ways.<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> Now I'd like you to stop thinking about elephants.<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> On 3/15/26 10:17 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:<br>>>>>>> Perhaps I should just drop the metaphor and speak to the beliefs the metaphor represents to me. Expertise both sights and blinds us; great expertise sights and blinds us greatly.<br>>>>>> -- <br>-- <br>Ąs\u0131\u0279\u018e \u05df\u0131\u0250H </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'>\u22a5</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> \u0250\u05df\u05df\u01dddo\u0279 \u01dd u\u01dd\u05df\u0183<br>\u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 oi \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c7\u03d1\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c3\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9.<br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></body></html>