That's funny, none of those definitions mention Levi-Strauss or any other intellectual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricolage The first, “social bricolage,” was introduced by cultural anthropologist Claude > Lévi-Strauss <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_L%C3%A9vi-Strauss> in > 1962. Lévi-Strauss was interested in how societies create novel solutions > by using resources that already exist in the collective social > consciousness. The second, "creative cognition,” is an intra-psychic > approach to studying how individuals retrieve and recombine knowledge in > new ways. Psychological bricolage, therefore, refers to the cognitive > processes that enable individuals to retrieve and recombine previously > unrelated knowledge they already possess.[7] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricolage#cite_note-7>[8] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricolage#cite_note-8> Psychological > bricolage is an intra-individual process akin to Karl E. Weick > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_E._Weick>’s notion of bricolage in > organizations, which is akin to Lévi-Strauss' notion of bricolage in > societies.[9] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricolage#cite_note-organizational1-9> -- rec -- On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > R., > > > > Thanks for this. > > > > “bricolage “ is one of those words I thought I knew the meaning of… and > didn’t. I thought it referred to what you got if you dropped a stack of > fine china while carrying it to the table before your wife’s dinner party > for her boss. Bad pun from “breakage” I guess. Here is a really nifty > source, containing both definitions and etymology: > > > > http://www.memidex.com/bricolage > > > > It actually seems to mean “puttering’, at its root. So, a day which you > spent doing a little of this and a little of that is broccolage. The > meaning gets extended to objects constructed in the same way as such a > day…. An object constructed of a little of this and a little of that is > considered bricolage. Bower birds and packrats’ construtions are > “bricolage” . Mockingbird songs would be bricolage. > > > > Now I have to go back and read you post. > > > > Not stinking hot yet. I think the front is about to come through. Still > some over-running. > > > > N > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Roger > Critchlow > *Sent:* Sunday, June 11, 2017 10:58 AM > > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Model, Metaphor, Analogy > > > > The pattern is that people recognize patterns. Patterns of sensory > experience that get resolved to people, places, things, phenomena. > Patterns of gesture, utterance, markings on media which get recognized as > language. Patterns of linguistic expression which contend to be seen as > models, or metaphors, or analogies, or similes, or congruencies, or > homologies, or patterns. > > > > At this point, one might ask: how many layers of pattern recognition are > there between sensory experience and arguments about models and metaphors? > But our best artificial examples of pattern recognizers are deep neural > nets, and they don't care about no stinking layers. A "layer" in a net > might feed its conclusions to the "next layer", to itself, to its peers, to > its ancestors, to its descendants, to any of the above with a delay, or all > of the above. The net architecture is probably written to allow as many of > these connections as are feasible and to use the back propagation of error > to prune. And next week's architecture will have more feasible connections > than last week's. > > > > So that's a model of why we can get in such a muddle when we talk about > patterns of patterns, we try to impose patterns of logical consistency, > coherent architecture, hierarchical structure, modularity, levels of > organization, and so on, all of which are good patterns, but they are none > of them the ruling pattern that our pattern recognizers are built on, which > is all of the above, and some other principles as yet to be recognized, in > whatever proportions works. > > > > Pattern recognition is a form of natural selection. The result is > bricolage rather than direct application of engineering principles. I was > trying to find the adjectival form for bricolage. Adventitious, > fortuitous, seredipitous -- but all of these imply a kind of luck, and > promiscuous implies undiscriminating. I'm looking for the word for > discriminating in its selection of elements but entirely open to whatever > solution might be available. Hmm. > > > > All of this leaves aside the issue of whether the pattern recognized is > true or false according to the pattern of empirical falsification or the > pattern of feels right. > > > > -- rec -- > > > > On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote: > > R. > > > > Y-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-s…………….............? > > > > And the pattern is…………………? > > > > N > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Roger > Critchlow > *Sent:* Sunday, June 11, 2017 7:11 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > > > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Model, Metaphor, Analogy > > > > I think I'm starting to see a pattern here. > > > > -- rec -- > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Tom Johnson <t...@jtjohnson.com> wrote: > > Dave West writes: "... An example, "the future is in front of us." > > > > Unless you're a member of some Andean tribe whose name I've forgotten. > Then the past is in front of use because we know what it is, we can see > it. And the future is behind us because we know not what it is. (Source: > a recent SAR lecture that isn't online yet.) > > > > TJ > > > > ============================================ > Tom Johnson > Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA > 505.577.6482 <(505)%20577-6482>(c) > 505.473.9646 <(505)%20473-9646>(h) > Society of Professional Journalists <http://www.spj.org> > *Check out It's The People's Data > <https://www.facebook.com/pages/Its-The-Peoples-Data/1599854626919671>* > > http://www.jtjohnson.com t...@jtjohnson.com > ============================================ > > > > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Jenny Quillien <jquill...@cybermesa.com> > wrote: > > If there is a WedTech on this thread I would also certainly attend. So I > vote that Dave gets busy and leads us toward the light. > > Jenny Quillien > > > > On 6/10/2017 8:24 PM, Prof David West wrote: > > Hi Nick, hope you are enjoying the east. > > > > The contrast class for "conceptual metaphor" is "embedded metaphor" ala > Lakoff, et. al. An example, "the future is in front of us." Unless, of > course you speak Aymaran in which case "the future is behind us." > > > > Steve, I do not regularly attend WedTech, but if this thread becomes a > featured topic, I certainly would be there. > > > > davew > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017, at 07:35 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > Hi, Dave, > > > > Thanks for taking the time to lay this out. I wonder what you call the > present status of “natural selection” as a metaphor. In this case, the > analogues between the natural situation and the pigeon coop remain strong, > but most users of the theory have become ignorant about the salient > features of the breeding situation. So the metaphor hasn’t died, exactly; > it’s been sucked dry of its meaning by the ignorance of its practitioners. > > > > I balk at the idea of a “conceptual metaphor”. It’s one of those terms > that smothers its object with love. What is the contrast class? How could > a metaphor be other than conceptual? I think the term subtly makes a case > for vague metaphors. In my own ‘umble view, metaphors should be as > specific as possible. Brain/mind is a case two things that we know almost > nothing about are used as metaphors for one another resulting in the vast > promulgation of gibberish. Metaphors should sort knowledge into three > categories, stuff we know that is consistent with the metaphor, stuff we > know that is IN consistent with the metaphor, and stuff we don’t know, > which is implied by the metaphor. This last is the heuristic “wet edge” of > the metaphor. The vaguer a metaphor, the more difficult it is to > distinguish between these three categories, and the less useful the > metaphor is. Dawkins “selfish gene” metaphor, with all its phony > reductionist panache, would not have survived thirty seconds if anybody had > bothered to think carefully about what selfishness is and how it works. > See, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311767990_On_the_ > use_of_mental_terms_in_behavioral_ecology_and_sociobiologyThTh > > > > This is why it is so important to have something quite specific in mind > when one talks of layers. Only if you are specific will you know when you > are wrong. > > > > I once got into a wonderful tangle with some meteorologists concerning > “Elevated Mixed Layers” Meteorologists insisted that air masses, of > different characteristics, DO NOT MIX. It turns out that we had wildly > different models of “mixing”. They were thinking of it as a spontaneous > process, as when sugar dissolves into water; I was thinking of it as > including active processes, as when one substance is stirred into another. > They would say, “Oil and water don’t mix.” I would say, “bloody hell, they > do, too, mix. They mix every time I make pancakes.” The argument drove me > nuts for several years because any fool, watching hard edged thunderheads > rise over the Jemez, can plainly see both that the atmosphere is being > stirred AND that the most air in the thunderhead is not readily diffusing > into the dryer descending air around it. From my point of view, convection > is something the atmosphere does, like mixing; from their point of view, > convection is something that is DONE TO the atmosphere, like stirring. You > get to that distinction only by thinking of very specific examples of > mixing as you deploy the metaphor. > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com > <friam-boun...@redfish.com>] *On Behalf Of *Prof David West > *Sent:* Saturday, June 10, 2017 11:36 AM > *To:* friam@redfish.com > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Model, Metaphor, Analogy > > > > long long ago, my master's thesis in computer science and my phd > dissertation in cognitive anthropology dealt extensively with the issue of > metaphor and model, specifically in the area of artificial intelligence and > cognitive models of "mind." the very first academic papers I published > dealt with this issue (They were in AI MAgazine, the 'journal of record' in > the field at the time. > > > > My own musings were deeply informed by the work of Earl R. MacCormac: *A > Cognitive Theory of Metaphor* and *Metaphor and Myth in Science and > Religion.* > > > > MacCormac argues that metaphor 'evolves' from "epiphor" the first > suggestion that something is like something else to either "dead metaphor" > or "lexical term" depending on the extent to which referents suggested by > the first 'something' are confirmed to correlate to similar referents in > the second "something." E.G. an atom is like a solar system suggests that a > nucleus is like the sun and electrons are like planets plus orbits are at > specific intervals and electrons can be moved from one orbit to another by > adding energy (acceleration) just like any other satellite. As referents > like this were confirmed the epiphor became a productive metaphor and a > model, i.e. the Bohr model. Eventually, our increasing knowledge of atoms > and particle/waves made it clear that the model/metaphor was 'wrong' in > nearly every respect and the metaphor died. Its use in beginning chemistry > suggests that it is still a useful tool for metaphorical thinking; modified > to "what might you infer/reason, if you looked at an atom *as if* it were > a tiny solar system." > > > > In the case of AI, the joint epiphors — the computer is like a mind, the > mind is like a computer — should have rapidly become dead metaphors. > Instead they became models "physical symbol system" and most in the > community insisted that they were lexical terms (notably Pylyshyn, Newell, > and Simon). To explain this, I added the idea of a "paraphor" to > MacCormac's evolutionary sequence — a metaphor so ingrained in a paradigm > that those thinking with that paradigm cannot perceive the obvious failures > of the metaphor. > > > > MacCormac's second book argues for the pervasiveness of the use and misuse > of metaphor and its relationship to models (mathematical and iillustrative) > in both science and religion. The "Scientific Method," the process of doing > science, is itself a metaphor (at best) that should have become a dead > metaphor as there is abundant evidence that 'science' is not done 'that > way' but only after the fact as if it had been done that way. In an > Ouroborosian twist, even MacCormac;s theory of metaphor is itself a > metaphor. > > > > If this thread attracts interest, I think the work of MacCormac would > provide a rich mine of potential ideas and a framework for the discussion. > Unfortunately, it mostly seems to be behind pay walls — the books and JSTOR > or its ilk. > > > > dave west > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017, at 03:11 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > > I meant to spawn a fresh proto-thread here, sorry. > > > > Given that we have been splitting hairs on terminology, I wanted to at > least OPEN the topic that has been grazed over and over, and that is the > distinction between Model, Metaphor, and Analogy. > > > > I specifically mean > > > > 1. Mathematical Model > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model> > 2. Conceptual Metaphor > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_metaphor> > 3. Formal Analogy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy> > > I don't know if this narrows it down enough to discuss but I think these > three terms have been bandied about loosely and widely enough lately to > deserve a little more explication? > > I could rattle on for pages about my own usage/opinions/distinctions but > trust that would just pollute a thread before it had a chance to start, if > start it can. > > A brief Google Search gave me THIS reference which looks promising, but as > usual, I'm not willing to go past a paywall or beg a colleague/institution > for access (I know LANL's reference library will probably get this for me > if I go in there!). > > http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631221081_chunk_ > g97806312210818 > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > ============================================================ > > 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > ============================================================ > > 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > > ============================================================ > > 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > ============================================================ > 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > ============================================================ > 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > ============================================================ > 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > ============================================================ > 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove