This seems like a fantastic attempt! It's still layered with sophistry. You're
saying I've stripped you of the capacity or interest. Yet that's clearly not
true. You're reifying a thought experiment, a counterfactual. That's fine.
The attempt to look at the world naively is a good one, though, even if what you're looking at is the *presentation* of
my meaning ("anger", "contempt", "rage", troll metaphor, etc.). It's good to strip away
layers of the narrative like that to see if you can view something naively, "objectively". But it's still an
analysis of the presentation, not the target of the arrangement of lenses and mirrors I tried to assemble.
IDK. I've done all I can, I think. My intent was to circumscribe and directly
target why Schmulik would/will eventually ghost you: because you look at his
metaphor instead of through it.
I'd like to leave off congratulating you on the attempt in the hopes that you'll do
it again later, in some other context, but without adding the pedantic
counterfactual. Just for grins, I'll add that a medium dose of psychedelics, in the
proper set & setting of course, can help doff one's debilitating obsessions.
And I recommend shrooms. You can buy the spores on the internet. They're legal
pretty much anywhere. And grow them in your closet. Doing so adds a little
connection to nature and the plant to help layer the trip. Cleanse your doors of
perception! 8^D
On 3/20/26 11:21 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Ok, Glen, You win. You have stripped from me any capacity or interest in how
metaphors mean, the limits of what they do and don't convey. I am in that
state. Now, without reference or exploration of any metaphor, please help me
understand what you meant by the following passage:
*/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. [⛧] /*
It's funny, because before you stripped me of my ability to think about metaphors, I thought I understood you precisely. You want me to take life just as it presents itself. Ok. I can do that, sort of. It's what I do most of the time. As we both know, there is nothing simple about how the world presents itself. There is always a past and a future and the naive present is always an amalgam of the two. We live neither in nor for the moment. But I will hum along. What do I see in this case? Well, first I naively see anger and contempt. I could try to mitigate that experience, by examining the text, but no, I am not permitted to do that in this world of naive perception. What I see, is a man incoherent with ... rage? What I see is a creature lurking in the dark moist crevaces under a bridge shouting, "Who's that treading over my bridge?" Thats what I naively see. But none of that is helpful to me in trying to reap the benefit of your prodigious mind. So I try to
NOT take what I see naively to be all that is there to be seen. I say to myself, this is a man who has given me some really great working metaphors. This is a man whose thought is respected widely by people whose thought I respect. Before he stripped my of my analytical powers, I was led to try and squeeze every bit of juice out of the dry- skinned fruit he grumpily proffered. Now, I just see an angry man living in an incoherent world.
Please, please Glen give me back my powers of analysis so I can see you as I
used to see you.
N
On Fri, Mare 20, 2026 at 7:28 AM glen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
<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/
