Irony, sarcasm, bitterness, fatigue.
I'm dissapointed that I create these reactions. I have not made myself
understood at all, atleast not by Andrea - and he's an intelligent guy -
this is something for me to be ashamed of.
Perhaps this is because it seems so obvious to me, so that I fail to
anticipate the points of difficulty. But really, I read what I have written
and it does seem to say just exactly what it needs to say. I have said it
all, but apparently I have not said it in the right way yet, and this makes
me dispair because I have said what I have to say in several different ways
without success. Perhaps there is someone, just one, who has undestood?
Declare yourself - I'm in need of reassurance.
I will try again.
I have been saying that "discrete" cannot be a metaphor. My reasoning has
been has follows.
1. Metaphor is (something like) seeing one object as (or in terms of)
another.
2. All objects whatsoever are discrete.
THEREFORE
4. Some object somewhere was discrete when nothing else was, because some
object was the first object and all objects are discrete (restates 2).
AND
5. The use of "discrete" in that first case was not metaphorical because
there was no other object that this first discrete object was seen in terms
of (1 + 4).
SO
6. "Discrete" has a non-metaphorical meaning (restates 5).
I have run this argument in several forms in diverse contexts. When Andrea
invited me to explain about Plato's Forms I had, I thought, given it my best
statement. But the argument as I have given it now should do fine. There
should be no difficulty in understanding it, atleast, however strongly you
may object to it.
Puzzled, Annoyed, & Elephant
(Solicitors at Law and Commisioners of Cor Blimey Oaths)
> From: Andrea Sosio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organization: Italtel S.p.A.
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 16:03:35 +0200
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Yes! MD rogers metaphors
>
> Elephant,
>
> Good. Your msg was like a koan to me. I stil do not follow your logics but as
> I was
> squeezing my brain I managed to convince myself that DQ is continuous by
> definition,
> thus not metaphorically, at least if you define continuous as "non-discrete",
> which
> is fine for me.
>
> I also remember what my literature teacher told me: metaphor is an analogy
> without
> an explicit "like...". That's all.
>
> It also occurs to me that you have a clear-cut metaphorical/non-metaphorical
> only
> when using nouns on both sides. If the left hand of the "like" has a noun, you
> really need a noun on the right hand.
>
> So if you say DQ is continuous - if it is a metaphor, that should implicitly
> be
> "like a continuous <something>". If you are thinking of mathematical
> continuous, you
> are saying "DQ is like a continuous function", dropping the "like" and the
> "function". It all depends on what hits your mind first when you think of
> "continuous".
>
>
> Thanks
> AS
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
