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). .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
