Interesting question Corey - why is literality privileged over metaphor. I suspect it might touch on a topic you have brought up before - our dislike of ambiguity. We are hardwired for answers, and try to pin down metaphorical to literal. Literal is easier as it brings closure- and we can go back to sleep. Metaphor is forever open, and demands reinterpreting - no sleeping :)
Ernest Becker would see this as part of our death denying strategy. For my denial strategy to work must be right. Literality closes the discussion - I will defend it because it chases off my death fear. This I think is why fundamentalists will not - cannot - accept the metaphorical nature of scripture even though they are records of essentially ineffable insights.
This inability to accept the ubiquity if metaphor in abstract conceptualization is a cause of so much strife in our world.
3.6 is an approximation or abbreviation of 3.66... (3.7 would be more conventionally rounded) for some practical purpose. If 3.6 is a metaphor for for 3.66..., then one-ounce-oblate-spheroidal-pure-white-fine-grained-marble-pebble is a metaphor for "60,234,567,890,987,654,321,012 atoms (plus or minus as time goes by)", itself only a numbering, ignoring the ongoing drama of states and interactions within and between all those atoms.
If approximation and abbreviation are metaphor, everything is.
The question is how wide you set the border(s) between metaphor and non-. If *metaphor* refers to a possibility within language, a figure of speech (as my dictionary says it does), then it is metaphorical to consider language itself to be metaphorical. Beware the infinite regress.
In such cases, approximation is useful.
In fact, an analog system (like most of brain function) is inherently approximate. Non-approximation (digitization) seems to require a lot of brain power to approximate on it..
Watched this three time...It caused me to look up this quote in Philip Wheelwright's book, "Language and Reality" - he says:
"If reality is intrinsically latent and unwilling to give up its innermost secrets even to the most enterprising explorer, then the best we can hope to do is catch partisan glimpses, reasonably diversified, all of them imperfect, but some more suited to one occasion and need, others to another."
Science & mathematics are versatile but there are not absolutes.
hmm... the point is for example to simulate the substrate behind our metaphor of existence in different substrate computationally equivalent... e.g.
pi is an expression of material relation that is certainly beyond language or any symbol system. i'm convinced it's even beyond the metaphor of the material, but that's just me being silly platonic idealist. (cont.)
on the other hand i agree that using word mature in stead of fundamental was asking for contraversy. and arrogance posturing... still methinks goedel pwned that fundament into the realm of "debased immature metaphor" land, anyway...
Maturity, referring to branches of inquiry, might be measured by the number and sizes of the sub-branches they have spawned, and the fruits they have borne.
oy, about the first part... another sort of arrogance of the 21st century man. you think there was no biology, chemistry, sociology, study of literature before 19th century when physics finally stumbled on electromagentism and thermodynamics? (cont.)
and as for godel: he certainly showed that there is no ground/literal level in math. if there is it's arbitrary, and in abstracto can be metafied as far as prime names of our terms last, or rather thrown upon us by ontology of the arithmetic. and if physics starts where math ends, it's steeped in metaphor, too, points? lines? vectors? perhaps if one (after years of practice) cuts through the metaphors someday one may come upon insight of new intution in pure reason.
Considering that pi has an infinite value, and the universe has an infinite size;
Would you care to consider the similarity of one of our known atoms to an equally well known solar system?
I am not well educated.... considered stupid by most. It's just that atomic structure seems to resemble a kind of a building block. How many levels, above and below, can it go? Is it infinite? Is it finite?
I don't expect an answer. We can't know. We can only ponder.
Atoms are much less like solar systems than we usually think, but solar systems are easier to imagine, and we try to use that imaginary model to understand atoms. Our minds use images we understand (things going around other things, for example).
i would say, despite the similarity we see, that the world looks quite different on different (subatomic, atomic, molecular, biochemical, organic, bodily, societal, planetary, solar, galactic, and cosmic) levels.
This relates to your recent arguments w/ people about ambiguity - in that it's another way of essentially saying "all those other people are living shaded, ambiguous existences, but I've come across the one clear, unambiguous truth."
You can break language down into math already, for all the good it will do you - I studied symbolic logic. More important, though, than whether premises are true or arguments valid is the attractiveness of the speaker & whether they can appear sincere.
It seems to me that you're using the concept of metaphor in order to further demonstrate your point about life being full of ambiguities ... which is fine, but if taken to the Nth degree, ie; where all language is viewed as metaphorical, 'literal' becomes obsolete. No?
I am reading the reference to 'mature science' in the sense that, for example, Kuhn uses the phrase, and would say that it is perfectly possible to disregard the potentially pejorative associations of that word in favour of a more precise reading.
Similarly, pMathematica made use extensive use of depth metaphors in his first response video, but I think his reference to 'deep science' is a pretty well established part of the language used to indicate a focus on smaller and more 'fundamental' entities than those typically encountered in the biological or social sciences. Again, I don't feel obliged to take on or be troubled by other potential metaphorical associations.
isn't a model a metaphor? It's a likeness of approximation. Reality is never going to be translated into each of our brains the same way. No matter how perfect your model seems to you it will never be identical to another persons mental interpretation of that same model. Also, how can you be so sure that reality itself is a universal constant for all observers? I'm pretty sure it isn't.
Part of the problem is the idea that metaphor is approximation. It's not. When we use Newtonian physics to plan trajectories, we're using approximate language. It's metaphorical too, but not in the same sense. In metaphor, you are bringing a rule to the phoros. "In" and "out" are good examples. When we say "in the conversation," we are bringing the rule of "in" in a literal sense to a non-literal application. It's the same rule, just applied elsewhere, not an approximation.
Even if you have 3 tomatoes, precise quantity is still an illusion. What do you really have, other than 3 non-identical objects labeled as "tomatoes"?
Even when we go to the atomic level, we would have to assume that all up quarks are truely identical, which while possible, is not provable.
One of my favorite examples of the necessarily inexact nature of science is pi. Such an important constant, used in countless equations. We can estimate it very closely, yet never exactly
That said, the goal of science is to get as close to the truth as possible, and literary embellishment creates a likely barrier between the person veiwing the material and the intended point of the presentation.
2+2 is like 4 or it's also like 10-6 but I really like when 2+2 is like 8-4 because that's my favorite. I wonder why mathematicians tend to prefer the reductionist version of math...sooo what is the answer to 2+2 = ?
Interesting question Corey - why is literality privileged over metaphor. I suspect it might touch on a topic you have brought up before - our dislike of ambiguity. We are hardwired for answers, and try to pin down metaphorical to literal. Literal is easier as it brings closure- and we can go back to sleep. Metaphor is forever open, and demands reinterpreting - no sleeping :)
soulfetcher 2 years ago
Ernest Becker would see this as part of our death denying strategy. For my denial strategy to work must be right. Literality closes the discussion - I will defend it because it chases off my death fear. This I think is why fundamentalists will not - cannot - accept the metaphorical nature of scripture even though they are records of essentially ineffable insights.
This inability to accept the ubiquity if metaphor in abstract conceptualization is a cause of so much strife in our world.
soulfetcher 2 years ago
Thanks so much for the insights. I guess I agree quite heartily and wish I would have included that in the video!
Professoranton 2 years ago
3.6 is an approximation or abbreviation of 3.66... (3.7 would be more conventionally rounded) for some practical purpose. If 3.6 is a metaphor for for 3.66..., then one-ounce-oblate-spheroidal-pure-white-fine-grained-marble-pebble is a metaphor for "60,234,567,890,987,654,321,012 atoms (plus or minus as time goes by)", itself only a numbering, ignoring the ongoing drama of states and interactions within and between all those atoms.
If approximation and abbreviation are metaphor, everything is.
prhughes0 2 years ago
Yes. The question is over the particular metaphors and the consequences of these
Professoranton 2 years ago
The question is how wide you set the border(s) between metaphor and non-. If *metaphor* refers to a possibility within language, a figure of speech (as my dictionary says it does), then it is metaphorical to consider language itself to be metaphorical. Beware the infinite regress.
In such cases, approximation is useful.
In fact, an analog system (like most of brain function) is inherently approximate. Non-approximation (digitization) seems to require a lot of brain power to approximate on it..
prhughes0 2 years ago
Watched this three time...It caused me to look up this quote in Philip Wheelwright's book, "Language and Reality" - he says:
"If reality is intrinsically latent and unwilling to give up its innermost secrets even to the most enterprising explorer, then the best we can hope to do is catch partisan glimpses, reasonably diversified, all of them imperfect, but some more suited to one occasion and need, others to another."
Science & mathematics are versatile but there are not absolutes.
2bsirius 2 years ago
Oops...the title of Wheelwright;s book is "Metaphor and Reality" NOT "Language and Reality"
2bsirius 2 years ago
hmm... the point is for example to simulate the substrate behind our metaphor of existence in different substrate computationally equivalent... e.g.
pi is an expression of material relation that is certainly beyond language or any symbol system. i'm convinced it's even beyond the metaphor of the material, but that's just me being silly platonic idealist. (cont.)
jogayot 2 years ago
on the other hand i agree that using word mature in stead of fundamental was asking for contraversy. and arrogance posturing... still methinks goedel pwned that fundament into the realm of "debased immature metaphor" land, anyway...
jogayot 2 years ago
Maturity, referring to branches of inquiry, might be measured by the number and sizes of the sub-branches they have spawned, and the fruits they have borne.
What about Gödel? i'm curious.
prhughes0 2 years ago
oy, about the first part... another sort of arrogance of the 21st century man. you think there was no biology, chemistry, sociology, study of literature before 19th century when physics finally stumbled on electromagentism and thermodynamics? (cont.)
jogayot 2 years ago
and as for godel: he certainly showed that there is no ground/literal level in math. if there is it's arbitrary, and in abstracto can be metafied as far as prime names of our terms last, or rather thrown upon us by ontology of the arithmetic. and if physics starts where math ends, it's steeped in metaphor, too, points? lines? vectors? perhaps if one (after years of practice) cuts through the metaphors someday one may come upon insight of new intution in pure reason.
jogayot 2 years ago
Considering that pi has an infinite value, and the universe has an infinite size;
Would you care to consider the similarity of one of our known atoms to an equally well known solar system?
I am not well educated.... considered stupid by most. It's just that atomic structure seems to resemble a kind of a building block. How many levels, above and below, can it go? Is it infinite? Is it finite?
I don't expect an answer. We can't know. We can only ponder.
mogodbilealadamnbama 2 years ago
Atoms are much less like solar systems than we usually think, but solar systems are easier to imagine, and we try to use that imaginary model to understand atoms. Our minds use images we understand (things going around other things, for example).
i would say, despite the similarity we see, that the world looks quite different on different (subatomic, atomic, molecular, biochemical, organic, bodily, societal, planetary, solar, galactic, and cosmic) levels.
Inquiring minds are not stupid.
best,
p
prhughes0 2 years ago
This relates to your recent arguments w/ people about ambiguity - in that it's another way of essentially saying "all those other people are living shaded, ambiguous existences, but I've come across the one clear, unambiguous truth."
You can break language down into math already, for all the good it will do you - I studied symbolic logic. More important, though, than whether premises are true or arguments valid is the attractiveness of the speaker & whether they can appear sincere.
FeelFreeToArgue 2 years ago
It seems to me that you're using the concept of metaphor in order to further demonstrate your point about life being full of ambiguities ... which is fine, but if taken to the Nth degree, ie; where all language is viewed as metaphorical, 'literal' becomes obsolete. No?
Let's keep it relative ... because it is!
TWITfromURANUS 2 years ago
as the sign, the most fundamental unit in semiotics, is double coded (signifier and signified), metaphor is just mush on top of mush.
Sherwulff 2 years ago
Science is particulate knowledge which is discarded by the knowledge holder. (eg. smokers)
Barklord 2 years ago
I am reading the reference to 'mature science' in the sense that, for example, Kuhn uses the phrase, and would say that it is perfectly possible to disregard the potentially pejorative associations of that word in favour of a more precise reading.
conferencereport 2 years ago
Similarly, pMathematica made use extensive use of depth metaphors in his first response video, but I think his reference to 'deep science' is a pretty well established part of the language used to indicate a focus on smaller and more 'fundamental' entities than those typically encountered in the biological or social sciences. Again, I don't feel obliged to take on or be troubled by other potential metaphorical associations.
conferencereport 2 years ago
isn't a model a metaphor? It's a likeness of approximation. Reality is never going to be translated into each of our brains the same way. No matter how perfect your model seems to you it will never be identical to another persons mental interpretation of that same model. Also, how can you be so sure that reality itself is a universal constant for all observers? I'm pretty sure it isn't.
subinfinite 2 years ago
Part of the problem is the idea that metaphor is approximation. It's not. When we use Newtonian physics to plan trajectories, we're using approximate language. It's metaphorical too, but not in the same sense. In metaphor, you are bringing a rule to the phoros. "In" and "out" are good examples. When we say "in the conversation," we are bringing the rule of "in" in a literal sense to a non-literal application. It's the same rule, just applied elsewhere, not an approximation.
azrienoch 2 years ago 3
I'm really enjoying this series.
azrienoch 2 years ago
Even if you have 3 tomatoes, precise quantity is still an illusion. What do you really have, other than 3 non-identical objects labeled as "tomatoes"?
Even when we go to the atomic level, we would have to assume that all up quarks are truely identical, which while possible, is not provable.
One of my favorite examples of the necessarily inexact nature of science is pi. Such an important constant, used in countless equations. We can estimate it very closely, yet never exactly
pfarabee 2 years ago
That said, the goal of science is to get as close to the truth as possible, and literary embellishment creates a likely barrier between the person veiwing the material and the intended point of the presentation.
pfarabee 2 years ago
2+2 is like 4 or it's also like 10-6 but I really like when 2+2 is like 8-4 because that's my favorite. I wonder why mathematicians tend to prefer the reductionist version of math...sooo what is the answer to 2+2 = ?
subinfinite 2 years ago
You are talking about analogy not metaphor. To things treated as the same is analogy.
theosophers 2 years ago