Hi, Steve, I would like to see it. Resend. .
I see Stephen as trying always to force a proof. I know he sees me the same. But he has taught me so much over the years. I wonder what proof it is I am trying to force. Probably the idea that, chaotic as it is, the world is a good place to deploy reason and people are organisms on whom it,s best to bestow trust.. Neither of these propositions is always true, of course, but I find them heuristic. I treat my friend George in the same way. His first understandings of me are often startlingly clairvoyant, but I have also found that it doesn't pay to press him too far. I have asked him about this flaw and he says it's something about his search structure. Something about his inability not to see unicorns everywhere after I have told him unicorns dont exist. Nick Nick On Sat, Mar 21, 2026 at 5:49 PM Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Nick - > > 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. > > An obvioius flaw in my use of the metaphor of course... you heard "fine > abrasive for further polishing" when I meant "thin scattering layer to make > legible micro-defects". On the other hand, your misapprehension *might* be > useful exaptatively (is that a word? - is now) useful as you pointed out > another facet (damnable optical spatulas *everywhere*!) of trying to > improve a tool (metaphor, optical-element, spatula) by patiently "grinding > finer", while not necessarily measuring more acutely? > > > 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. > > (extended from Sociology/Ethnography - I find metaphors *in communication* > to be most apt as "boundary negotiation artifacts"... a placeholder for > something we both might understand idiosyncratically to our own personal > domain expertise/experience which we then begin to beat on (with a wet > noodle?) until we both are sufficiently exhausted or agree that the thing > held between us is "good enough for who it's for" in the moment. > > 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. > > I *try* to hear the slap of Sophomores' shrug as the master's > encouragement stick (kyōsaku) wrapped in a kōan as it hits me upside my > big head... this is possibly a character flaw. > > 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 > > The better I get to know someone, the more I realize I'm not really > understanding them (just like quantum mechanics and postmodernism!). Even > though my actual understanding (not my apprehension thereof) is (nearly) > monotonically increasing. > > Guerin and I have. known each other now most of 20 years (you have a jump > on me I think, others here definitely do) and to anyone listening in as we > quaff brews and chomp nachos and flap our gums at Tesuque Market, it > probably sounds like we "speaka da same language", and yet the point of > those "stir it up" sessions (for me) is to confuse myself. > > This is the worst part about LLM chatting... those buggers are incredibly > good at pretending they understand every word. I say and then going a step > further and anticipating WTH I might be about to tangent on (technically > I'm pretty sure they don't anticipate anything until my next > prompt-utterance lands on them, but you get the point?). > > Is metaphor analysis one way of getting into that kind of conversation? > Yes. Is such analysis necessary in every context. No. > > And yet it is my default, even if/when/as I keep it to myself. I am a > metaphorical creature (or believe I am) while others may not embrace their > inner spatula at all. I think I deleted the massive missive where I > related metaphorical understanding/communication to episodic/diachronic > identity. > > It was clever... a good enough reason alone to delete it? > > Consider yourself spared (unless I actually sent it and anyone read it)! > > - 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/
