Well, to be clear, I "offered" 100s of thousands of metaphors. THAT is the
point of my response to Nick's bias-imputing *choice* to cherry pick only 4 out
of those thousands. That's the pattern in pretty much every one of these
"metaphors everywhere" tangents we take.
And my more recent comment to Nick applies to this post as well. I'd believe
we're engaged in some sort of "role of metaphor in <placeholder>" discussion if
and only if the "<placeholder>" were being talked about. But we're not talking
about the "<placeholder>". We're not talking about the context (which was
"privacy games" writ large -- but I'd be happy to talk about the role of
metaphor in *any* particular context as long as the context was actually
maintained as a core part of the discussion [†]).
But no. Instead, we're talking completely abstractly about _metaphor_
*regardless* of context. It's a purely hypothetical exercise in ungrounded
theory (where I use "theory" quite generously).
[†] Steve's recent comments *do* begin to seem interesting with the "sensorial
grounding out" and the comments about direct and indirect maps from tacit vs.
formal knowledge because he wraps it context (like tennis vs. soccer). Even
there, though, I'm not very interested. These useless tangents have convinced
me that the overwhelming majority of the uses of the word "metaphor" are
markers for sloppy thinking. Y'all have installed a trigger in me that only
decades of therapy will remove. >8^D Forever more, when I hear "metaphor",
it'll be like quantum woo, every time some patchouli wearing psychonaut says
"entanglement", I get a bit nauseous. Now that happens with "metaphor", too.
On 5/28/20 5:56 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
> 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.
--
☣ 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/
