I think I just saw Marcus blocking 880 in Oakland! > Nick, for the record, and this will not change from my end: > > Your right to be interested in whatever you are interested in is > sacrosanct, here or in any other forum. I don’t think there are > thread boundaries on that, though there are all the normal courtesies > which I see more clearly for a while after I transgress one. > > Eric > > >> On May 30, 2020, at 1:03 PM, <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> All – >> >> I feel norm formation going on here, and it is making me a bit >> nervous. I am not sure what follows from that, but there it is. I >> thing that we at FriAM have long worked the boundary between work and >> play. I think that’s where the best work is done. >> >> But this is my thread, right? Can a man bust his own thread? */_I >> d o n t t h I n k s o_/*. I want to talk about metaphor. And it’s >> relation to models. And it’ relation to the concept of >> intentionality. The question is, To what extent do our norms allow >> me to bring those concerns to other threads. And the answer I am >> hearing from many of you is, “Less than I have been”. >> >> Well, I will do my best. But, for instance, I think the “work” we >> did on “strawman” was tremendously important. In my introductory >> graduate lectures at Berkeley, where, one by one, the the grey-backed >> gorillas of the department laid down the law. Somebody, I think >> David Krech, announced that if “I say that the number of rat turds >> left by a rat in an open field maze is “anxiety”, then that is what >> anxiety IS for the purposes of my research, and there’s no more >> discussion to be had.” And even in the tenuous position of a first >> year graduate student I knew that was wrong. Meanings have >> momentum. Words have meaning that is independent of their users. I >> have fought for 50 years to rescue ‘teleonomy’ (=natural design) from >> the dualistic thieves that abducted it. And SteveG and I could be >> thought of as battling for nigh a decade and half about which >> specification of the metaphor of natural selection is best for the >> purposes of understanding natural design. (I thought we made a lot >> of progress on that issue today.) Much of what we do in scientific >> discourse is fight over metaphors and we need to develop methods for >> fighting fairly, skillfully, and expeditiously. >> >> I don’t think I have EVER introduced the idea of metaphor in a >> conversation where I didn’t think a clarification or specification of >> the metaphors implicit in our conversation might move the discussion >> forward. I may be playing with words but I am not /just/ playing >> with words. God knows, I may have been WRONG in many cases, but I >> absolutely defend the idea that attention to the metaphors at play in >> a conversation is often essential to any development of understanding >> or convergence of opinion. >> >> Is it /always?/ No. Of course not. And I will try to be more >> careful about that. >> >> Thanks, as always, for all your thoughts. My life would not be half >> of what it is without them. Really. It’s perhaps pathetic for me >> to admit that, but it’s true. >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> Nicholas Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >> Clark University >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> >> >> *From:* Friam <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> *On Behalf Of *David Eric Smith >> *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2020 9:11 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Metaphor [POSSIBLE DISTRACTON FROM]: privacy games >> >> Hi Jon, >> >> No, actually not any issue with any of what you had posted, as also >> just affirmation toward various historical posts by Glen. >> >> Yes, sorry about a thread-rudeness. I had sort of dropped a chunk of >> something that had been accumulating for a week in the middle of your >> thread which was in the coarse of solving other problems, where it >> didn’t belong. Partly this was because yours had been the latest >> snapshot, partly it was because the overall frame you and Glen and >> Steve are building is one that I would like to think of my own >> additions as finding a place in, and partly I was probably using the >> measured tone of this sub-thread as cover, since my own was rather >> crabby and aggressive. Strange that it seemed formally impolite to >> me, to use your thread as a point of departure and not direct the >> salutation to you, while I blew past the fact that it was >> substantively rude to use the thread, rather than to participate in it. >> >> Very good. Thanks for calling me on this, >> >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> >>> On May 30, 2020, at 9:43 AM, Jon Zingale <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Eric, >>> >>> I am not sure that I disagree with you anywhere, but I am >>> unsure whether you are taking issue with me? The proliferation >>> of threads are sometimes hard for me to follow, inevitably I mis- >>> determine who is talking to whom. Are there places in my writing >>> that you would suggest I revisit and reconsider? Pointing things >>> out to another can be an expensive and thankless task, so thank >>> you in advance. >>> >>> Jon >>> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . >>> -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> <http://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 >> <http://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/
