I think it's interesting that you seemed to have *flipped* your thinking within the same post. You restate my point about conceptual metaphors by saying models/computation merely *justifies* decisions/rhetoric. Then a few paragraphs later, you suggest that's conflating language with thought.
My diatribe to Nick was that he *uses* metaphors/models simply to impute his conceptual structure onto Nate. Nick's decision is already made and he wants Nate's work to justify it. And the way he *imputes* his conceptual structure into Nate's work is through the sloppy use of metaphor. Then when Nate tells Nick (indirectly) that Nick's wrong about what Nate's done, Nick rejects Nate's objection. I'm picking on Nick, of course. We all do it. I wish we all did it much less. On 4/18/20 6:14 AM, Steven A Smith wrote: > But frankly as often as not, I saw > them use our work to *justify* the decision they had already made or > were leaning heavily toward, *apparently* based on larger strategic > biases. > > [...] > > As for your gut-level (and often well articulated) mistrust of > "metaphorical thinking", you may conflate a belief (such as mine) that > language is metaphorical at it's base with being a "metaphorical > thinker". Metaphor gets a bad rap/rep perhaps because of the > "metaphorical license" often taken in creative arts (albeit for a > different and possibly higher purpose). -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
