My first reaction: I don't think "bent space time" is a metaphor. I don't use metaphor in thought because I know exactly what I "mean". I'm not even sure I use language in thought except when I'm planning an email, for instance.
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:57 PM Eric Charles <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure I follow all the different sticking points this conversation > has developed... but I'm gonna risk punch the tar baby anyway... > > I'm not sure Glen's point about "xyz" gets us very far. Sure, you can call > anything you want by any label you want. I'm not sure anyone disputes that. > But after that there remain three-ish different issues, which I think Nick > tends to muddle: > > 1) The role of metaphor in communication. > 2) The role of metaphor in thought. > 3) The role of metaphor in science. > > Glen's example doesn't get us very far in any of those conversations, > because it is an example, and literally any example is self-defeating in > these contexts. > > The role of metaphor in communication: Glen want's us to understand that > there are many situation like the one he described. He doesn't literally > use "xyz" in all those cases, but it is like he has done that, in crucial > ways. He also isn't always referring to a "green thing in the distance", > but, again, it is like he has done that, in crucial ways. In order to > effectively communicate his idea, he offered a metaphor... because they > make communication much easier. > > The role of metaphor in thought: Does Glen inherently think that way? I > think the analysis would be similar. > > The role of metaphor in science: I'm not sure where this aspect is in the > various conversations at the moment, but a particular strength of Nick's > analysis of metaphor illuminating its role in science - both for better and > for worse. Scientific theories are metaphors that are meant to be taken > very seriously ("Natural selection", "A snake eating its tail", "Bent space > time", "The bystander effect", "Atomism", etc., etc.). We make the metaphor > because we see a similarity between two situations, and we intend that > metaphor to suggest other similarities that we have not witnessed. Because > it is a metaphor, we don't intend an exact match, so there are intended > non-similarities as well. The intended similarities are the things to be > investigated. Something goes awry if people start investigating the > non-similarities. For example, it would be silly if we had demanded Glen > produce an example of when he had used "xyz" in the past to refer > specifically to a "green thing in the distance". Glen didn't intend that > aspect of his metaphor to be held up to such scrutiny (at least I do not > think he intended it to be). Good metaphors function in common conversation > without the need to hammer out such details explicitly, and typically > without any intent to investigate the intended implication. > > Did I punch the tar baby enough? Am I hopelessly stuck? Or did I possibly > help accomplish anything? > > > P.S. I am very committed to Nick's understanding of how to understand > metaphors, but abhor the notion that it is metaphor all the way down. There > were once people who had to literally toe a literal line, and now there are > people who metaphorically "toe the line", and anything that makes it seem > like we will lose that distinction is highly problematic. Don't know if > that's relevant, but since I've seen a few people in the thread talk about > "Nick/EricC" I thought I'd mention that crucial difference. > P.P.S. And a metaphorically "toe the line" might or might not be distinct > from whatever dysfunctional thing is happening when wherein someone is said > to "tow the line"... with the latter definitely being relevant to Glen's > comments about the arbitrariness it all. Is it still a functional metaphor > if someone writes "tow"?!? "Yes" in one sense, but obviously "no" in > another. > > > ----------- > Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. > Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist > American University - Adjunct Instructor > <[email protected]> > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 4:53 PM David Eric Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Yes, I second this. The way Glen puts the point is exactly right. >> >> On May 28, 2020, at 11:14 PM, Frank Wimberly <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Good, Glen. >> >> --- >> Frank C. Wimberly >> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, >> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >> >> 505 670-9918 >> Santa Fe, NM >> >> On Thu, May 28, 2020, 7:50 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <[email protected]> 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.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/ >> >> >> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . >> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... >> 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-comic.blogspot.com/ > -- Frank Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... 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/
