[Matt]
If all symbolic patterns are metaphorical, then why didn't you
include physics, linguistics, and biology as things that can approach DQ?
[Arlo]
I didn't include a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they can't
cast our gaze towards DQ. Many mathematicians see a inesperable
harmony or beauty in math. And many linguists (especially the cunning
ones... sorry, couldn't resist) see a beauty in the pattern on
language. So of course they can cast our gaze towards the indefinable Void.
The problem, as I closed my post with, is not in the form, but in the
impetus to literalize. I also might say that some forms of symbolic
encoding have been so cemented over the years, it is really hard to
get past this illusion.
[Matt]
What's this distinction between "definition" and "approach," only the
latter of which can help us with DQ?
[Arlo]
"Definitions" tend towards literal, "approach" tends towards metaphor
(the way I use them in my post). What we forget (and I'm thinking of
Max Black and Carl Hausman here and other metaphor studiers) is that
"literal" is really a dead metaphor, or a very cemented one. Hey,
don't get me wrong, we depend a lot on literalized language. Its the
shared convention by which much of society is able to operate. The
trouble is when we expect more from it, when we try to literally
define "love", for example.
[Matt]
Or, to put it another way, if all symbolic patterns are metaphorical,
then what kind of metaphorical pattern is "definition"?
[Arlo]
Recursive? Self-referential? Can't escape them, should you try! (You
can ask as well, what is "metaphor" a metaphor for?)
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
