NickAh, but it is Human Nature *and* the Human Condition to disagree (for fun and profit). Embryological models then...? Metaphors are like (to use a Simile) using piecewise linear (or more apt for several reasons, piecewise sigmoids) curves to fit an arbitrary 1-D Function. Each piece can be pretty good "locally" but begin with, but to stretch the application to far leads to disaster... thus the "piecewise". Depending on the specific parameters of your linear (or sigmoidal) fit, there are regions where more than one parametric model (or metaphorical target domain) fit equally well and it only matters which one you choose if you know which direction you are headed away from the region of interest. Eh? All are One? One are One? We are all one? All one vs Alone? Actually I believe that eyes are the favorite example of multiple, parallel (and sometimes convergent) evolution. That is not to say that they don't share some of the same basic proteins, but that their higher level structure (and coding) was (apparently) arrived at independently. I think this might be more like noticing that many "stone age" cultures use "stone", "plant materials", and "animal products" for the basis of their technology. The fact that around the world that many different cultures *knapped* stone and then lashed it onto sticks to make spears and arrows and then made atlatls and bows to hurl these missiles, seems more like the situation of re-invention/discovery of eyeballness across many genera. So... I've already used my simile of "piecewise curve fitting" to describe how (inherently multidimensional) metaphors work to model the "real" world in our language. I believe that a GOOD metaphor has more properties than just having a "good fit" in the dimensions and range of a system/phenomena/concept we are modeling. A minimally sufficient metaphor would have that. And if it *also* yielded a *bad fit* in one or more dimensions (especially those which we hold high weight on) such as you describe here with the "toolkit metaphor" immediately calling forth the need of a "toolwielder". So GOOD metaphor "fits" the phenomena well (within a relevant and desired subset of it's dimensions and range) without yielding "false positive" matches in the source domain ( such as the "tool wielder" example). A GREAT metaphor has some other properties, such as being inherently parameterizeable.... such as if the "toolkit" had tools which could be more or less self-motivated/articulated and in invoking the metaphor, one could appeal to the more rather than less motivated/articulated nature. Another property is that the metaphor can be deliberately "twisted" or "broken" to yield interesting variations. I suspect the "toolkit metaphor" *does* get broken/twisted to fit, but not very gracefully it would seem. Some metaphors seem more amenable to (deliberate and thoughtful) distortion than others. Similarly, *mixing* metaphors can be very useful... blending between two. My training (or lack of imagination) leaves me thinking of gene _expression_ and regulation in cybernetic terms... feedback loops, etc. This is not new, so probably not useful to you in this case. FWIW, I am enjoying your verbosity... and we've been having our own spate of wet weather here in NM... very nice for this time of year... - Steve |
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
