Ah. Now I see what the problem is. You guys are all millenialists. Friam is an escatology site.
Last place in the world for any Deweyan. n On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 2:57 PM Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> wrote: > Make your metaphors, just don’t believe them. Like code generated by AI, > it is all disposable. > > > > > https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/dario-amodei-anthropic-ai?srsltid=AfmBOoqoJL59uZfvJn40AVgvb8e1AdVKkPb-OJusy6tf19ThC28VsET0 > > > > <Not everybody in the room sees hope on the horizon. A guy named Trenton, > an alignment technician, says he’s stopped contributing to his 401(k) > because he only plans around a “five-year event horizon,” when AGI will > have turned the world upside down. He recently got a prescription for > sleeping pills and doesn’t bother wearing sunscreen at the beach. “If I get > sunburns, I don’t really worry,” he says.> > > > > > > *From: *Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of Nicholas Thompson < > [email protected]> > *Date: *Thursday, March 19, 2026 at 1:12 PM > *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] The metaphor in the room > > Dave: et tu, brute? > > > > As for the rest of you heathens, this feels like one of those jolly > conspiracies to misunderstand that is flat-out infuriating when one is the > butt of it. Watching you all raise your crispy lacy crinolines above the > dark muck of metaphor would be hilarious if it weren't misplaced and > vaguely. unkind. > > > > Here is the argument again, stripped down to its essentials. Note that it > is not an argument in favor of metaphor. I a m no more arueing in favor of > metaphor than I am arguing in favor of the wind. Let not your responses, > if there are any, be of the form, "Damn the wind!" > > > > 1. Metaphors are everywhere. We can disclaim them all we like, but they > are deeply embedded in the way in which we proceed from thought to > thought. They lurk in how professionals talk to one another and also in > the manner in which professionals talk to the public. > > 2. There is a lot of evidence these days that scientists have "lost" the > public. This is a very dangerous situation. My suspicion is that this has > to do with the metaphors we use when we talk to the public about what we do. > > 3. We all seem to agree that there is truth and falsehood disguised in > every metaphor. > > 4. Given the ambiguity of metaphors, I am interested in a method for > understanding their role in thought and communication, particularly in > understanding the manner in which truth and falsehood is deployed in them. > How are we to distinguish between a better and a worse metaphor if all > contain elements of falsehood. What am I to take from your metaphor? What > are you to take from mine? > > 5. Given the entanglement of truth and falsehood in metaphor, it's worth > exploring distinctions between what implications a speaker intends by a > metaphor, what the coherence of the metaphor can logically sustain by way > of implication, and what implications hearers take from the metaphor. > > 6. Given that I want to pursue this line of thought, what follows for my > Phellow Phriam members? > > 7. You can ignore me. This is the fate of most contributions to Friam. No > foul there. > > 8. You can help me get it right. > > 9 You can loftily castigate me. > > > > Not clear to me why, busy people that you are, you would bother with 9. > > > > Look, I am 88 years old. There is going to be a time soon when you put me > on an iceberg and send me out to be among the seals and the polar bears. > Perhaps it is today. But please, dear god, don't make fools of yourselves > while you are doing that. I have known some of you for more than 20 years. > You are bright, insightful people. You have been enormously helpful in the > past. I don't want my last view of you to be waving your fists and > shouting, red-faced, some of the boneheaded things you have asserted in > your recent emails. And if Icebergs echo, do you really want those same > utterances coming back at you. > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > . > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 7:47 AM Prof David West <[email protected]> > wrote: > > While I am happy to concede what I perceive to be glen's main thrust—the > term metaphor is generally abused and vastly overused and should be given a > rest—I see no need for Nick's response; and, I still have a serious > question. > > If I am confronting something new, something at the "edge of science," and > I want to communicate with peers or explain to an informed general public > that which I am confronting; there seems to be a need for a label, a word. > > I see four options and am sure that there are others that have not > presented themselves: > 1- establish a formal system by which new names are created, e.g., the > INN system administered by WHO for naming new drug compounds. (Or, > taxonomic names for flora and fauna) > 2- name by reference, as Bose-Einstein Condensate, refers to a body of > work advanced by those two authors > 3- craft a "nonsense" word, e.g., quark, flavor, charm, and strange > 4- apply a word that is familiar in one context and apply it to the new > context, e.g., "string" theory. > > The first three options would seem preferable for communication among > peers, but only the fourth one seems workable for use with an informed > public. > > What additional constraints or embellishments are advisable/desirable to > effectively employ the fourth option without falling into the > metaphor-abuse-misuse trap? I think glen offered at least one > constraint/embellishment—use appropriate modifiers. > > Are there instances where the fourth option would be useful, even among > peers; at least in exploration stages? If yes, what is needed to prevent > the error of continuing to use the "metaphor" beyond that initial period? > (Unless, of course, all accumulated evidence confirms the word as literal.) > > davew > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2026, at 10:31 AM, glen wrote: > > Your (3) targets my initial trigger and why I mentioned postmodernism, > > sophistry, and included these 3 links: > > Debunking the Fake Historian Taking Over the Internet: Professor > > Jiang's Predictive History > > https://youtu.be/tSiS-8Msn1I?si=lBOXHmIFfHtppwac > > The Age of Hyperreal Fascism > > https://youtu.be/R9fpm-lorIU?si=eLizlyzgsAq624AR > > Bret Weinstein | Game Theory > > https://youtu.be/5NAQMoRzuxk?si=6zcftBKUvmdwJ9p2 > > > > When someone attempts to communicate with you, you have the *option* of > > either 1. meta-splaining or 2. looking _through_ the content, rather > > than looking _at_ the content. As with your analogy to can openers, I > > had the option of being a smartass and pointing out the inadequacy of > > the term "can opener" (1) or engaging with my best guess at what you > > actually meant. I kindasorta chose to do both in order to get at the > > point. > > > > People who yap constantly about how this or that word or concept is a > > metaphor (or any number of other peeves like split infinitives, vocal > > fry, ending a sentence with a preposition, conflating envy with > > jealousy, etc.) are *choosing* to engage in (1) to the preemptive > > exclusion of (2). > > > > If we go back to the original context of ultracrepidarianism and the > > usefulness of the naked emperor story, we don't *need* to use the word > > (or concept) of metaphor to get to the point. And we don't need the > > allegory/fable at all. Fresh eyes can help a group see things in fresh > > ways. Like ... duh. Obviously. Even referring to the naked emperor > > story seems more like a literary "flex" than a competent contribution. > > More deeply, Nick need not use the word/concept of metaphor in his > > criticism of the definedness of "atmospheric press". > > > > I often get the feeling I'm trapped on the couch with Beavis and > > Butthead. But instead of "Huh-huh-huh-huh. He said 'anus'", we get > > "Huh-huh-huh-huh. That's a metaphor." Or maybe it reminds me of working > > in Silly Valley, where all the tech bros talked about > > quantumquantumquantum in some bizarre attempt to look smart. IDK. > > Sometimes ... *most* times a cigar is just a cigar. How irritating is > > it when your hipster friend overuses "phallic"? Or winks at you > > whenever a woman uses the word "taco"? OMG, give it a rest. > > > > > > On 3/18/26 6:37 AM, Prof David West wrote: > >> 1 - I plead guilty to misusing "metaphor." Only, however, to the > extent that I conflate multiple similar terms, e.g., simile and analogy, > under a single umbrella, "metaphor." Also, because, even when used > precisely, a metaphor can be different 'things' at different times—i.e., it > has a lifecycle—including epiphor, diaphor, failed metaphor, lexical term, > and my own neologism, "paraphor." > >> > >> 2 - Metaphor is, and should be used as such, just as precise a term > as any other word; including the ones you listed and catachresis. There is > a thread within linguistics study dedicated to metaphor. > >> > >> 3 - As for, 'everything a metaphor'. Every noun (likely any word) in > a language might be construed as metaphor, e.g., "dog" */_is_/* "this > complex, amalgamated, integrated, bundle of sensor (e.g., nerve ending) > blips." > >> > >> 4 - with regards responsibility: the damage done by unrecognized, > unacknowledged metaphors like, "brain is computer," and, "executing > software is cognition," are extraordinarily harmful but no one is held to > account for asserting them. > >> > >> davew > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2026, at 6:17 PM, glen wrote: > >> > Were you to write something like: "... scientists, when they use such > >> > rich catachreses as 'entanglement', fail to take responsibility for > >> > consequences of such use", I would not object. That word, unlike > >> > metaphor, has a fairly concrete meaning, something like "fills > lexical > >> > gaps in scientific terminology, providing names and concepts where > none > >> > previously existed". > >> > > >> > Or, were you to write something like: "... scientists, when they use > >> > such rich didactic metaphors as 'entanglement', fail to take > >> > responsibility for consequences of such use", that would be OK too. > The > >> > 'didactic' qualifier helps the reader *understand* whatever the hell > >> > you might mean. > >> > > >> > I don't actually care that much what the first person who used a word > >> > meant by that word. Etymology and usage history are interesting and > can > >> > sometimes hint at the word's normative meaning. But what matters much > >> > much more is what the current author(s) mean when they use the word. > >> > > >> > And, again, if everything's a metaphor, then the word 'metaphor' is > >> > useless... like saying everything is a thing. It feels like the Bad > >> > kind of "sophistry" to use a phrase like "the metaphor (metaphor)". > It > >> > not only wastes everyone's time; it also gives me The Ick: > >> > https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=the%20ick < > https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=the%20ick> It's > >> > difficult to steel man something when that thing grosses you out. > >> > > >> > > >> > On 3/17/26 12:31 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > >> >> Cmon, Glen, where is the Steelman of Yore? > >> >> > >> >> To apply the metaphor (metaphor) to every utterance is no more > "corrupt" than to mathematize every proposition. It becomes corrupt only > when it is not pursued honesty. "Entanglement" is a metaphor. It directs > the mind. "Natural selection" is a metaphor. It also directs the mind. > >> >> > >> >> My worry is that scientists, when they use such rich metaphors as > entanglement fail to take responsibility for the consequences of such use. > Let's assume that the person who first used the metaphor, entanglement, > meant something by it. We can formalize the analysis of metaphors just as > we can mathematicize any proposition. And in that formalization, we can > sort out the direction, and misdirection in the metaphor. What did they > intend when they used the metaphor entanglement? What did they NOT > intend? And when the disclaimers have been completed, is there anything > left of the metaphor. If not, then, perhaps,*/scientists should stop using > the metaphor/*. In the same way that we have stopped calling porpoises > "fish". > >> >> > >> >> I don't know enough to even speculate what role "entanglement" as a > metaphor has played in the development of quantum physics. But I claim to > know enough about human behavior to assert that it has played some role, > and that physicists run some risks if they altogether disclaim it. > >> >> > >> >> What might we gain, SteelMan, from exploring human thought as > movement from metaphor to metaphor, each new experience being understood as > a version of some previous one? My love is like a red,red rose, delicate, > delighting, fragrant. But OH! the thorns. Did I mean the thorns. Was > there ever a rose that did not have thorns? Metaphors are like that. > >> >> > >> >> When you say that we metaphorists are liars, what are the > experiences of being lied to that you bring to bear. When we analyze > metaphors (I assert), it's always best to be as particular as possible. > Describe to me a particular jarring instance of being lied to. Now project > that experience onto the experience of being metaphored to. What are the > surplus meanings of applying the metaphor; which of those surplus meanings > are disclaimed; once these disclaimers have been noted, does the metaphor > retain any heuristic value. > >> >> > >> >> I have to say, I don't like being called a liar. But -- as the > saying goes -- "if the foo shits", I guess I have to wear it. So, what > experience do you imagine when you imagine being lied to? What aspects of > that experience do you intend when you call metaphorists liars? What aspect > do you disclaim? What is the heuristic value of the metaphor, once the > disclaimers have been made. > >> >> > >> >> By the way, just as an interpersonal matter, if you call me a > sinner, it doesn't help that you immediately call yourself a sinner. Any > contempt you feel for yourself, does nothing to salve the contempt you feel > for me. In fact it makes it worse. I have to bear the contempt of an > admitted /sinner!/ > >> >> > >> >> But I love you anyway. I wouldn't engage you if I didnt. > >> >> > >> >> Nick > > > > > > -- > > ¡sıɹƎ ןıɐH ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ > > ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα > σώσω. > > > > > > > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. > > / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > archives: 5/2017 thru present > > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > > -- > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology > > Clark University > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson > > https://substack.com/@monist > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > -- Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology Clark University [email protected] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson https://substack.com/@monist
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
