/*NST -*/
*/[NST==>I like “source” and “target”. Let’s use these terms here on
out. “Domain” is probably unnecessary, and might lead to
hand-waving. I still hate “conceptual metaphor” as introducing
potential for confusion. Anytime you say “This thing is a That” you
are invoking a conception – a “grasping-together”. <==nst] /*
I wish I could stop splitting hairs with you, but it seems /built into/
this discussion (another metaphor, really?)! I understand "domain" to
modify "source" and "target" to make it clear that what is being
discussed/considered/reasoned/intuited upon may be bigger than a single
"thing". Perhaps the over-used onion needn't be referred to as more
than a source (or target) but if I were invoking a garden or landscape
*source* it is important that I'm talking about the whole ensemble of
likely/possible gardens or landscapes. With onions, it seems easier to
imagine a singular canonical onion (unless your field of study is the
inner life of Alliums). in fact when the humble Onion was first
invoked, I immediately abstracted (in my mind) to "bulb" with a nice big
fat juicy vidalia onion as the prototype of the moment for my
consideration, but including a wide range of bulbs, some more edible
than others. We could certainly use "source" and "target" as shorthand
if we accept that the object of each is something more general/abstract
than a specific object.
If I read your gripe with "conceptual metaphor" correctly, it is that
"conception" already suggests ("grasping together") the metaphor? I
use "conceptual metaphor" to specifically imply that the "target"
(domain) is in a more conceptual/abstract realm than literal/concrete.
the "source" (domain) may also be relatively abstract but I think for
utility is in some sense "closer to literal, or concrete" than the
target. From Lakoff/Nunez, ultimately these layered/stacked metaphors
ground out in human perceptions... things we apprehend directly with our
senses...
"The price of nonsense in America has /risen/ in 2017" - /Rising/ is
from the conceptual domain of /directionality /which has affiliation
with the domain of simple geometry, and perhaps is apprehended more
directly perceptually by a human by our inner ear and other measures of
the gravity gradient. I don't know if YOU feel an empty spot in your
gut when "the bottom of the stock market drops out", or a sense of
"elation" when the local housing bubble "elevates the value of your
family home" or not, I think many do.
In the example at hand, Glen invoked "an Onion" as the /source/
domain in a metaphor to try to understand the more general and
abstract target domain of /layer/. Other /source/ domains (deposition
layers, skin, geology) were offered as well to offer conceptual
parallax on this.
*/[NST==>See how you suddenly got wobbly when you started using the
word “domain”? “Domain” is another metaphor and would require its own
specification. <==nst] /*
"Domain" is almost certainly a "borrow word" from another <ahem> domain,
that perhaps of political/economic/military control/influence. But then
so seems "source" (as in a spring is the source of a creek) and "target"
(keep your eye on the target and your aim steady!). I think that very
little of our language is not metaphorical, even if our awareness of it
as such is numbed by common usage. "numbed", "usage", "awareness"
(perceptual v. conceptual?)
I'm not sure if this is a rabbit hole
*/[NST==>Another metaphor, often used in such discussions (eg Owen’s
“Troll” troll. ) to disparage attempts to clarify what a group of
people is actually talking about. <==nst] /*
Being one of those who is /chasing this rabbit,/ I'm not sure I am
intending to disparage anything... more likely give us /an out/ if we
realize we are discussing something of lesser interest/relevance and
/losing sight/ of the topic we were originally more interested in? As
you can tell I am /game for/ (overly so?) discussing the meaning and
implications of the language we use, I'm just wondering if this is the
branch of the /branching/ discussion we are most interested in?
*//*
we fell down when we began to try to sort levels from layers. I think
the distinction is critical to the discussion (which is now nearly
lost in this forest of trees of levels and layers?) but is not the
discussion itself. We digress within our digressions.
Jenny and Dave and I are discussing amongst ourselves a live in-person
"salon" of sorts to be held at Jenny's (in Santa Fe) on the the
general topic of Models, Metaphors, and Analogy. Jenny and I have
elected Dave to try to lead this, Jenny is providing chairs and
shade. I'm pulsing the locals for interest in participating... I'm
only sorry Nick and Roger and Glen are so far away right now. Got
any (other) locals interested in chatting face to face on these
topics? Wimberly? Guerin?
*/[NST==>Oh, Gosh! That I should miss this. I would hope that at
some point you would have a look my article
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228580530_Shifting_the_natural_selection_metaphor_to_the_group_level>
on the confusions arising from the application of the natural
selection metaphor to groups. It’s a testy, difficult argument, with
an unexpected and interesting result. I wouldn’t expect anybody to
load it entirely, but I do think it’s a good example of how tidying up
metaphors can lead to a better understanding of issues. /*
I will give that a go, you have referenced it before and I expect it
might be a good /test case/ for some of our other /testiness/ here
<grin>. I'm all for tidying metaphors where it is useful.
*/ Given that so many potentially absent people are interested, I
would recommend organizing the conversation around a list. If you
haven’t done this by the time I get back in October, I could promise
to organize a “seminar” of the “city university of santa Fe” on
“scientific metaphors: their uses; their perils”. We would meet
regularly for a couple of hours. There would be readings. <==nst] /*
I think that doing so in October might still be very
interesting/useful. The /point/, of course, is to move it /offline/ to
a more /committed/ and /embodied/ and less asynchronous /setting/ to see
how it /unfolds/ differently.
*//*
I'm feeling the same juice as some our impromptu meetups BEFORE FriAM
became a formal deal! We could sure use Mike Agar about
now!*/[NST==>Of course Steve and Frank. They might or might not, be
interested. As you know, one man’s passion is another man’s bullshit.
Jon Zingale, for sure. Jenny’s partner would contribute a lot from
his understanding of Peirce’s abduction, which is closely but
ambiguously related to metaphor making. Jim Gattiker is a great
seminar participant … mind like a steel trap … but don’t know whether
this would interest him. Sean Mood is another great seminar
participant. <==nst] /*
Great suggestions, we'll see if any of them /bite/!
Metaphorically (and aphorismically) yours,
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
