This may throw something (light?) on the issue.
http://cheng.staff.shef.ac.uk/morality/morality.pdf
The reason I'm tossing this in may not become apparent until a ways into
it, when mathematical "morality" notions are used to address abstraction.
From my own perspective, I swap in musician/composer for mathematician,
but hey, I'm listening to Maria Joao Pires recordings just now.
Carl
On 3/10/15 10:36 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Ok Glen,
Imagine that I am standing before you holding a flat object, such as a
notebook in my left hand, flat side to you. I hold a small object, let's
say an artgum eraser, in my right hand above and behind the notebook. I
release the eraser. Please give me a "plain-spoken" description of what you
would see.
Thanks,
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ep ropella
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:31 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] metaphor and talking across skill levels
On 03/09/2015 05:44 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
I gather that "symmetry" is itself a metaphor, subject both to the joys
and pains thereof.
I suggest symmetry has a non-metaphorical definition. But I admit the word
can be successfully _abused_. ;-)
I never could find a plain spoken way to describe "above and below the
plane of the molecule" without resort to the very terms I was trying to
explain, until I thought of restaurant staff stacking six sided tables on
top of one another to facilitate cleaning. Only then did the three
dimensionality of traditional "ring diagrams" make any sense to me.
But, see, _my_ problem is that I don't regard the concept "above and below
the plane of the molecule" to be science. That's ideological hoo-ha
bouncing around in someone's mind. The science is what's done with the
hands (and feet, nose, etc.). There is no plain spoken way to describe
concepts. There are only plain spoken ways to describe _things_ ... real
things that you can touch and leave a bruise when someone throws it at you.
To me, metaphor doesn't seem fundamental to science because science is about
what you _do_, not what you think. It's way more scientific to talk about
stacking tables than it is to talk about "above and below the molecule".
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
