Steve, I completely misunderstood the talk metaphor. In fact, its a wonderful example of how checking metaphors can improve communication. I had you polishing the lens, making it cleaner, more transparent, more accurate. Mak ing it a better transducer of what lies beyond it. Therefore none of my remarks made much sense.
I think of models as formal metaphors, or as, in the case of agent models, as contrived metaphors. No daylight. The analysis continues from there: What did the user intend from the metaphor, what did the hearer take from it, and to what extent is the intent or inference a coherent understanding of the metaphor. I experience "I wonder if we can actually communicate at all" very differently from you. To me, it is one of those war-weary, sophomoric shrugs that I have to analyze endlessly to try and find any meat in it. In conversations, do we usually not understand some of the implications of what another person is saying? Yes. In conversations, do we sometimes understand some of the implications of what the other person is saying? Yes. Is it a good idea if you are going to deal repeatedly with a person to try to sort these categories out? Yes. Is assuming that what I got out is what the person is putting into it always a good idea? No, not always. Is metaphor analysis one way of getting into that kind of conversation? Yes. Is such analysis necessary in every context. No. N On Sat, Mar 21, 2026 at 3:26 PM Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Nick - > > I will work backwards. What is the test by which you determine whether > your talc-ing of the lens has improved your vision or whether it has made > it worse? That's not a rhetorical question. Work it through in your > imagination. How exactly do you determine this? This is the question that > lies > > I think my metaphor (as they are wont to do) fell short or directed you > wrongly. The "talc" was meant to be a dusted surface layer to scatter > light rather than refract it so that the lens-grinder can more effectively > read surface imperfections? > > As a laser-scanner or photogrammetric surface capture needs backscattered > light to actually read the shape of the surface. I think your apprehension > of "talc" as an aid in evaluating the quality of the lens (metapor or > spatula as glen would prefer) fits more into the category of viewing a > test-pattern through the lens to look for gross geometrical, spectral > distortions as well as local defects? > > at the bottom of EricS's complaint about TK. We would like to think it's > not "just" a social test. This is where Peirce takes off, I think: yes, > it's a social test, but it's not "just" a social test. In fact, the long > term social test has methods, it has rigor, it has precision, it has all > the good things that collective human cognition can have. > > This is a way of saying that Social Scines is in fact a Science (I don't > disagree even if it's rigor and style are naturally distorted by it's > context). > > These are scientific methods and the pursuit of such methods will lead > you to have fewer surprises in your life. The one thing it will never > have is experience of entities beyond the realm of human experience. It > follows that every sighting of a thing previously not encountered has to be > a metaphor. > > "facts about the world" vs "relations between ideas". I would add that > our wet-noodling of "metaphor" is more broadly "wet noodling" of "modeling > relations" with a special cat-o-nines with broken glass in the knots > reserved for the more figurative/colorful/literary styled versions? > > *<aside> is the contrast between wet-noodle-flogging and > rawhide-cat-o-nine-with-broken-glass useful or just distracting?</aside>* > > As an(other) aside (footnote, subscript, marginalia) to the whole > "metaphors/not" neverending-discussion, I think we simply have lost > whatever hysteresis element might be appropriate to keep us from > oscillating between (vaguely): "everything is metaphor and don't you forget > it!" and "metaphors are dumb!" (caricature). > > I was deeply moved (first reactionarily, then maybe generatively, and > finally comfortingedly?) by glen's assertion/question about "whether we > really communicate at all". I'm sure i fully fail to understand what he > meant by that, but nevertheless something like *new understanding" emerged > in me over hearing that (repeatedly?) and mulling (like spiced wine stirred > with a spatula?) a great deal. ("mulling" might be a plumb-dead metaphor > as is would be "plumb" itself?) > > I'm pleasantly puzzled at the contradictions that all this implies. Early > on I wanted to use the paradox/contradiction to debunk glen's claim, but if > anything, trying to do such, it wormed it's way (another dead-spatula) into > my mind (like RFK Jr's special friend) and now it feels excruciatingly more > like Godel's Incompleteness than anything. > > I see how metaphors *obscure* and *deflect* and *overstate* and perhaps > that is what makes them so damn good for what they do (all the time)? The > source of generativity? An "absential" perhaps in Deacon's vocabulary? > > Mumble, > > - Steve > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > 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/
