Re: Origami metaphor (Level b)
Locked
 
|
Glen said (I think it was glen)
"It's just like folding a piece of paper. Someone hands you a piece of paper and you fold it into an origami swan. Did you _discover_ the swan? Or did you invent the swan?" And Nick replies ... You all know by now how I feel about metaphors. Nick thinks being serious about metaphors is REALLY IMPORTANT <==rude shouting! So, when I say what I am about to say, I am not just nit-picking. I hope. Isnt the metaphor backwards? Given the uniqueness of the solution, isnt it more like you had been handed the swan and "discovered" that it was just a square piece of paper? n Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Origami metaphor (Level b)
|
|
Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 10/08/2008 04:13 PM:
> Glen said (I think it was glen) > > "It's just like folding a piece of paper. Someone hands you a piece of > paper and you fold it into an origami swan. Did you _discover_ the > swan? Or did you invent the swan?" > > And Nick replies ... > > You all know by now how I feel about metaphors. Nick thinks being serious > about metaphors is REALLY IMPORTANT <==rude shouting! > So, when I say what I am about to say, I am not just nit-picking. I hope. > > Isnt the metaphor backwards? Given the uniqueness of the solution, isnt it > more like you had been handed the swan and "discovered" that it was just a > square piece of paper? Well, it wasn't really a metaphor. It's a simile and/or an analogy. [grin] But, no, it's not backwards any more than it's forwards. The analogy I intended to make was between paper folding and math, not between an origami swan and a solution to a sudoku puzzle. Sorry for not being clear. The idea was that math is just the transformation of one set of sentences into another set of sentences by a particular grammar. This is (weakly) analogous to the transformation of a piece of paper from one shape to another. To make an analogy between the solution to a puzzle and a particular shape, one would have to add more constraints to the shape being sought. One might then be able to determine the uniqueness of a particular shape given those constraints. But such an analogy would be even weaker and wouldn't help explain Wittgenstein's position, I don't think. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Origami metaphor (Level b)
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Metaphors are like painting a green car red.
Or, like a shoe having it's sole condemned to perdition. Or, like a musician experiencing rough sax. On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: Glen said (I think it was glen) ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
No, no! "Life is like a metaphor!"
NO, "Life is a simile" No, WAIT! "Life is a metaphor, but LIKE a simile" Or so we "figure". merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily life is such a scream! This is how the surrealists probably got started, you know! - Steve
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Origami metaphor (Level b)
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ep ropella
Glen says,
> The idea was that math is just the transformation of one set of > sentences into another set of sentences by a particular grammar. This > is (weakly) analogous to the transformation of a piece of paper from one > shape to another. But then the idea driving you to do that is your own inspiration, the image of the swan, or the special one-to-one mapping, or whatever. How it fits into your own world of ideas and experience is what actually guides the direction in which you look for things to prove. It could be that in constructing math to be meaningful to mathematicians it's just a social convention that is being mapped, and not intrinsic forms of the universe, or that quite other intrinsic forms of the universe would be explored by others with different experience could they master the technique and get into the club. Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 7:36 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Origami metaphor (Level b) > > Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 10/08/2008 04:13 PM: > > Glen said (I think it was glen) > > > > "It's just like folding a piece of paper. Someone hands you a piece > of > > paper and you fold it into an origami swan. Did you _discover_ the > > swan? Or did you invent the swan?" > > > > And Nick replies ... > > > > You all know by now how I feel about metaphors. Nick thinks being > serious > > about metaphors is REALLY IMPORTANT <==rude shouting! > > So, when I say what I am about to say, I am not just nit-picking. I > hope. > > > > Isnt the metaphor backwards? Given the uniqueness of the solution, > isnt it > > more like you had been handed the swan and "discovered" that it was > just a > > square piece of paper? > > Well, it wasn't really a metaphor. It's a simile and/or an analogy. > [grin] > > But, no, it's not backwards any more than it's forwards. The analogy I > intended to make was between paper folding and math, not between an > origami swan and a solution to a sudoku puzzle. Sorry for not being > clear. > > The idea was that math is just the transformation of one set of > sentences into another set of sentences by a particular grammar. This > is (weakly) analogous to the transformation of a piece of paper from one > shape to another. > > To make an analogy between the solution to a puzzle and a particular > shape, one would have to add more constraints to the shape being > sought. > One might then be able to determine the uniqueness of a particular > shape given those constraints. But such an analogy would be even > weaker > and wouldn't help explain Wittgenstein's position, I don't think. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |