[FRIAM] The metaphor in the room

[Prof David West]

thank you for your clarification

Speaking only for myself: your argument is correct.

I spend a lot of time writing about fringe stuff, e.g., consciousness and altered states and enlightenment. Metaphor (using as umbrella term here) is an essential tool for any possible communication. It is a sharp edged tool. The intent is to create a lens through which my reader and myself can explore something. Crafting a precision, useful, lens requires more than a casual understanding of tool (lens) making. Also required, sensitivity to the communication that was supposed to be advanced using the tool to see if desired/expected results were, in fact, achieved; such that any necessary retooling can be performed._ _An absolute essential: the ability to abandon the tool when it proves itself contra-communicati_on-supporting._

Long, long, ago; in a physical FRIAM, far, far, away the initial discussion of "metaphor" centered on abuses in the sciences. Both Nick and I were, essentially, accusing too many scientists of tossing around metaphors with no regard to their appropriateness nor usefulness. They were not careful, or even even aware, of the need to craft a useful metaphor and, most importantly, _were unable to abandon ones that were demonstrably wrong, even harmful. _

Subsequently, especially on-line, the conversation spiraled inward in a, largely, unproductive manner. I wished it had, instead, focused on specific cases of metaphor abuse and possible alternatives approaches to understanding that which the metaphor was supposed to have helped.

[An aside: I know a lot about fetishism, another aspect of my NSFW self, and the insinuation of such with regard this topic is categorically wrong!]

davew


On Fri, Mar 20, 2026, at 8:27 AM, glen wrote:
> Fools have more to say, and more impact, than, for example, nit-picking 
> grammar nazis.
>
> Anyway, here is the counterargument, AGAIN! OK. I grant you all 5 of 
> your points. As a fan of postmodernist approaches, the examination of 
> every layer of every narrative in the stack *can* be worthwhile and 
> interesting, especially for academics. I'm glad you are also a 
> postmodernist.
>
> But if you actually want to *understand* what some other agent is 
> trying to say, you read *through* their text. You use it as a lens. If, 
> every time you picked up your eyeglasses, you only looked *at* the 
> lenses, those glasses would be useless as a tool. Every time you meet a 
> missive focusing on the metaphors used, you are explicitly/purposefully 
> misunderstanding the author. If metaphors are a tool, you're ignoring 
> their tool-ness. You promote the means/tool to an end. [⛧]
>
> People use their deeply embedded metaphors to communicate. If all you 
> can do is yap about their metaphors, you are blocking their ability to 
> communicate and your ability to understand what they mean.
>
> I'll turn your moral back around on you. You can choose to ignore my 
> counter argument, yet again. Or you can tell me why it's more important 
> to look at the lens than through the lens. [⛤]
>
>
> [⛧] A good analogy, here, is that of paraphilia 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia>. You have a fetish. Rather 
> than a metaphor *enhancing* your ability to see the world, you've 
> fetishized them. You think the metaphor *is* the world. Like a 
> fetishist, you're aroused by the tool, not the objective.
>
> [⛤] I can shunt a counter-counter argument in advance. In a mostly 
> rhetorical world, if you merely look *through* the metaphor, you're at 
> risk of being a victim of purposefully designed narratives, intended to 
> exploit or mislead you. Therefore, a critical thinker must *also* look 
> at the lenses, not merely through them. But this argument fails because 
> if you can't even look through the lens in the first place, then you 
> can never critically analyze how it [mis]directs your gaze. So the 
> *first* and primary skill is to be able to look *through* metaphors. 
> Looking at them is a secondary skill. And, like the grammar nazis, a 
> fetish for the form preemptively excludes an understanding of the 
> function.
>
> On 3/19/26 1:10 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>> 1. Metaphors are everywhere.  We can disclaim them all we like, but they are deeply embedded in the way in which we proceed from thought to thought.  They lurk in how professionals talk to one another and also in the manner in which professionals talk to the public.
>> 2. There is a lot of evidence these days that scientists have "lost" the public.  This is a very dangerous situation. My suspicion is that this has to do with the metaphors we use when we talk to the public about what we do.
>> 3.  We all seem to agree that there is truth and falsehood disguised in every metaphor.
>> 4. Given the ambiguity of metaphors, I am interested in a method for understanding their role  in thought and communication, particularly in understanding the manner in which truth and falsehood is deployed in them.  How are we to distinguish between a better and a worse metaphor if all contain elements of falsehood. What am I to take from your metaphor?  What are you to take from mine?
>> 5. Given the entanglement of truth and falsehood in metaphor, it's worth exploring distinctions between what implications a speaker intends by a metaphor, what the coherence of the metaphor can logically sustain by way of implication, and what implications hearers take from the metaphor.
> -- 
> ¡sıɹƎ ןıɐH ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
> ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.
>
>
>
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. 
> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present 
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260320/5c203fe7/attachment.html>