I have *never* heard or read "strawman" to mean anything other than a specious argument meant to show the absurdity of a position. A kind of reductio ad absurdum.
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Thu, May 28, 2020, 8:16 AM Prof David West <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with you, and I am Nick's ally in the "everything is metaphor" > camp. But the apparent contradiction is resolved by recognizing the role > and life cycle of metaphor. > > Metaphor is useful only in the circumstance of encountering an "unknown > thing" or attempting to express a "new" idea/concept. X is like Y — X being > an unknown and Y a known — offers a tool/technique for coming to understand > X. > > If the application of that technique fails to generate meaningful results, > the metaphor becomes 'dead' and is abandoned. > > If application is completely successful the metaphor becomes a lexical > term, just another word. > > Once upon a time "strawman" was a metaphor. Actually, since the lexical > term evidently has two meanings, it was two metaphors to two different > people in two different contexts. > > But that was then and this is now and "strawman" is no longer a metaphor, > it is exactly what you state: a string bound to a thing, in this case, a > concept. > > We metaphorists need to be much more careful about casting our aspersions. > > davew > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020, at 7:50 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > > I'll try again to describe why constant talk of metaphors is > > distracting nonsense, at least for me. When I use a word, that word is > > a variable bound to some context. We can bind any string of letters to > > any subset of any context. So, a string like "xyz" can be bound to > > "that green thing in the distance". Even *after* you and Joe or whoever > > later come to call "that green thing in the distance" by the string > > "tank", I can *still* call it an "xyz". I can do this for decades. > > "xyz" need have no other binding for which to "metaphorize". So, > > regardless of what *you* think when you read the string "xyz", I'm not > > using a metaphor when I say "xyz". You may think it's a metaphor until > > you're blue in the face. But I didn't use a metaphor. >8^D > > > > For me, a "strawman" has always meant that 1 single thing: rhetorical > > bad faith rewording. I've never used a straw man as a scare crow. I've > > never used it to train in combat. I've never used it to burn in effigy. > > I've never used it to mean anything but that one thing. So, therefore, > > it's not a metaphor. It's a meaningless string of characters bound to > > that one thing. > > > > Sure, *you* can read whatever I write however you *want* to read what I > > write. That's the very point of the > > privacy-despite-the-"holographic"-principle threads. How you read it > > CAN BE entirely unrelated to how I write it. When you *impute* metaphor > > status into arbitrary strings you see on your screen, you are > > *inscribing* your own understanding of the world *onto* the thing > > you're looking at. You are *not* blank-slate, receiving a message. > > > > Now, if you listened empathetically, you might choose to *ask* the > > author "Did you mean that as a metaphor?" You could even be a bit rude > > and continue with "Or are you too stupid to know the history of that > > string of characters?" This is a common thing. E.g. when someone uses a > > string of characters they grew up with to innocently refer to, say, a > > marginalized group, without *knowing* the marginalized group thinks > > that string of characters is offensive. Like wearing a Washington Red > > Skins jersey. Or when a 12 year old white kid sings along with some rap > > lyrics. > > > > You have options when you decode a string. It doesn't always need to be > > metaphorical. Even if, deep down, you're a complete pedant and you > > absolutely must point out that everything's always a metaphor, you CAN > > suppress that need for a little while ... sometimes ... just sometimes > > ... you have that power. > > > > So, no. Strawman is not a metaphor. If it helps you, I can stop using > > the string "strawman" and use "xyz" for that fallacy from now on. > > Please avoid the xyz fallacy. > > > > On 5/27/20 12:03 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > [...] “Strawman” is a metaphor, right? [...] > > > > > > The example of “strawman” is a wonderful example of a failure of a > metaphor at the first state. We did not all get the same “image” when it > was first deployed. That failure is instructive for me because it reminds > me that the familiar assertion that M is a metaphor for X is incomplete. > Explictly, or implicitly, there must always be a third argument. For > 0bservor O, M is a metaphor for X. In other words, we must be humble in > our use of metaphors. > > > > > > -- > > ☣ uǝlƃ > > > > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. > > . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > > > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . > ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
