[FRIAM] anthropological observations

[Steven A Smith]

Glen -
> I think it's interesting that you seemed to have *flipped* your thinking within the same post. You restate my point about conceptual metaphors by saying models/computation merely *justifies* decisions/rhetoric. Then a few paragraphs later, you suggest that's conflating language with thought.

I didn't say  "models/computation merely *justifies*
decisions/rhetoric", I said (meant) that that *particular* audience was
prone to seeking that justification and I didn't want to be (overly)
complicit in that.   Be extension, it is common TO use models (formal or
informal-metaphor) for that post-hoc justification.  In fact, we might
agree that a great deal of what we think of as forward/creative
thinking/judgement is post-hoc.  Perhaps you (some) would claim *all* is
post-hoc?

In the second part, I suggested that your broad criticism (skepticism?)
of metaphorical thinking  may well be justified (especially when
metaphors are used "too loosely") but that a sweeping judgement (if in
fact you are making such a sweeping judgement) that *language* (and by
extension, the mentation and communication) we do with it is rooted
(what root?  Is it a plant?) in.  

I will try to respond separately to Eric's extremely well articulated
description of some of this...   I think the crossing of your two (you
and eric) lines of fire offer some useful parallax, even if it is Nick
who is the victim (ok... I AM prone to over-use figurative speech with
blatantly colorful metaphors (what?  Metaphors have color?  Highly
saturated color?  How can you saturate a color, is a color a sponge or a
a tincture?))


> My diatribe to Nick was that he *uses* metaphors/models simply to impute his conceptual structure onto Nate. Nick's decision is already made and he wants Nate's work to justify it. And the way he *imputes* his conceptual structure into Nate's work is through the sloppy use of metaphor. Then when Nate tells Nick (indirectly) that Nick's wrong about what Nate's done, Nick rejects Nate's objection.
I do acknowledge the risks (propensity for) of imputing one's own
conceptual structure onto another's words/intentions/explanations.  
> I'm picking on Nick, of course. We all do it. I wish we all did it much less.

I appreciate Nick for his willingness and ability to "draw fire"
(returning to the metaphor of cross-fire) to help illuminate the balance
of power on the battlefield (there I go again!  Almost as if I were
trolling?).

- Steve

>
> On 4/18/20 6:14 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>> But frankly as often as not, I saw
>> them use our work to *justify* the decision they had already made or
>> were leaning heavily toward, *apparently* based on larger strategic
>> biases. 
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> As for your gut-level (and often well articulated) mistrust of
>> "metaphorical thinking",  you may conflate a belief (such as mine) that
>> language is metaphorical at it's base with being a "metaphorical
>> thinker".    Metaphor gets a bad rap/rep perhaps because of the
>> "metaphorical license" often taken in creative arts (albeit for a
>> different and possibly higher purpose).