thank you for your clarification
Speaking only for myself: your argument is correct.
I spend a lot of time writing about fringe stuff, e.g., consciousness and
altered states and enlightenment. Metaphor (using as umbrella term here) is an
essential tool for any possible communication. It is a sharp edged tool. The
intent is to create a lens through which my reader and myself can explore
something. Crafting a precision, useful, lens requires more than a casual
understanding of tool (lens) making. Also required, sensitivity to the
communication that was supposed to be advanced using the tool to see if
desired/expected results were, in fact, achieved; such that any necessary
retooling can be performed._ _An absolute essential: the ability to abandon the
tool when it proves itself contra-communicati_on-supporting._
Long, long, ago; in a physical FRIAM, far, far, away the initial discussion of
"metaphor" centered on abuses in the sciences. Both Nick and I were,
essentially, accusing too many scientists of tossing around metaphors with no
regard to their appropriateness nor usefulness. They were not careful, or even
even aware, of the need to craft a useful metaphor and, most importantly, _were
unable to abandon ones that were demonstrably wrong, even harmful. _
Subsequently, especially on-line, the conversation spiraled inward in a,
largely, unproductive manner. I wished it had, instead, focused on specific
cases of metaphor abuse and possible alternatives approaches to understanding
that which the metaphor was supposed to have helped.
[An aside: I know a lot about fetishism, another aspect of my NSFW self, and
the insinuation of such with regard this topic is categorically wrong!]
davew
On Fri, Mar 20, 2026, at 8:27 AM, glen wrote:
> Fools have more to say, and more impact, than, for example, nit-picking
> grammar nazis.
>
> Anyway, here is the counterargument, AGAIN! OK. I grant you all 5 of
> your points. As a fan of postmodernist approaches, the examination of
> every layer of every narrative in the stack *can* be worthwhile and
> interesting, especially for academics. I'm glad you are also a
> postmodernist.
>
> But if you actually want to *understand* what some other agent is
> trying to say, you read *through* their text. You use it as a lens. If,
> every time you picked up your eyeglasses, you only looked *at* the
> lenses, those glasses would be useless as a tool. Every time you meet a
> missive focusing on the metaphors used, you are explicitly/purposefully
> misunderstanding the author. If metaphors are a tool, you're ignoring
> their tool-ness. You promote the means/tool to an end. [⛧]
>
> People use their deeply embedded metaphors to communicate. If all you
> can do is yap about their metaphors, you are blocking their ability to
> communicate and your ability to understand what they mean.
>
> I'll turn your moral back around on you. You can choose to ignore my
> counter argument, yet again. Or you can tell me why it's more important
> to look at the lens than through the lens. [⛤]
>
>
> [⛧] A good analogy, here, is that of paraphilia
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia>. You have a fetish. Rather
> than a metaphor *enhancing* your ability to see the world, you've
> fetishized them. You think the metaphor *is* the world. Like a
> fetishist, you're aroused by the tool, not the objective.
>
> [⛤] I can shunt a counter-counter argument in advance. In a mostly
> rhetorical world, if you merely look *through* the metaphor, you're at
> risk of being a victim of purposefully designed narratives, intended to
> exploit or mislead you. Therefore, a critical thinker must *also* look
> at the lenses, not merely through them. But this argument fails because
> if you can't even look through the lens in the first place, then you
> can never critically analyze how it [mis]directs your gaze. So the
> *first* and primary skill is to be able to look *through* metaphors.
> Looking at them is a secondary skill. And, like the grammar nazis, a
> fetish for the form preemptively excludes an understanding of the
> function.
>
> On 3/19/26 1:10 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>> 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.
> --
> ¡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/
