lockdowns
Locked
12
12
 
|
Wow, Steve, I never got to “Effigy”. Because I took 7 years of Latin, I ended up looking at two Latin verbs that have the same past participle, figo, figere, fixi, fictus and fingo fingere, fixi, fictus and then, the most common of them all, faceo, facere, feci, factus, the first meaning to fix, the second meaning to form, and the third meaning to make. At this point, it began to occur to me in good FRIAM fashion, that these assignments of words to root-lineages were the work not of speakers of Latin but of its teachers, and that the etymology of words with such closely related spellings and meanings was almost certainly more “bushy” than teachers of Latin would have it. It was at this point, that Steve’s note grabbed me by my long ears and pulled me out of this rabbit hole. Of course, ef-figi-fic-ation. So, a neologism to be sure, but with good etymological standing, being derived both from fingo and faceo. So, effigification = the making of effigies or, to go down deeper, =the making of an outside-formed thing. Hey, studying Latin for 7 years has to be useful for something! Can you imagine how different my life would have been if I had 7 years of Chinese?! N Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > ... it's a lot of work to do that inferring and the subsequent error > correction in straw-steel-etc effigification Damn, that is a great well packed phrase with a word *I* might have conjured in the absence of any better one! I knew right away (I think) what you meant by "effigification" but when I went looking for a precedent for it, I couldn't find any. Could this be a true neologism? With a little luck it might find it's way into the OED in an edition or two. Like we can "verbize any noun", can we "nounificate any verb"? In this case, however it seems we are verbifying a nounificated verb? (effigy->effigify->effigification) But (mildly?)_ obscured (to me) is whether you consider the straw<->steel man continuum to in fact be *effigies*? My connotation of "effigy" includes the business implied by "to burn in effigy" which in fact *does* apply well to the more flammable end of the spectrum (i.e. straw), but I don't know if you intend that aspect. Straw-Steel men *are* models, and perhaps caricatures in some sense. I'm not deliberately splitting hairs to undermine your argument, but rather to understand more better what all might be implied by your use of the straw-steel idiom. I'm late to the party, having only recently (months) let go of my archaic mapping which was roughly opposite yours... in that "straw-good because it is designed to be discardable or an armature to plaster over into a more elaborate model" vs "steel-bad because it likely represents premature binding". - Steve - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Yes, I definitely consider them effigies. But I don't focus on the antipathy so much as some sort of canon or prototype. You can do with it what you will once you have that analog.
People often have a problem separating their *self* from their arguments. All the lip service we give to avoiding ad hominem gets completely lost almost all the time. If you make the same argument a thousand times, you begin to identify with it. So even if someone attacks the argument in a reasonable way, the person who made it feels attacked. Effigies help, especially political and religious ones. We see this most interestingly in video playbacks of athletes and horribly with body dysmorphia. If your coach burns you down with "You're soft! You need to be more aggressive!", it's difficult to depersonalize that criticism. But if she shows you your effigy and burns *that* down instead, then it allows you to think more objectively about your behavior and how it might be improved. Effigies are not merely models. They're reflective models. When GW Bush watches his effigy <https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/protesters-burn-an-effigy-of-us-president-george-w-bush-news-photo/80440447>, he should be *comforted* that they're not burning *him* down. But with the act, he has the opportunity to not be offended and to tease apart what he symbolizes. The same would be true of blasphemous images of Mohommed or Meghan Markle <https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/14/europe/charlie-hebdo-meghan-intl-scli-gbr/index.html>. It's useful to ask oneself how you'd feel if a group of people got together to burn your effigy? Would you react with fear? Anger? Accuse them of being stupid savages? Or perhaps wonder if you've done something seriously criticizable but provided the criticizers no refined way of criticizing? On 4/8/21 11:04 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > > But (mildly?)_ obscured (to me) is whether you consider the > straw<->steel man continuum to in fact be *effigies*? > > My connotation of "effigy" includes the business implied by "to burn in > effigy" which in fact *does* apply well to the more flammable end of the > spectrum (i.e. straw), but I don't know if you intend that aspect. > Straw-Steel men *are* models, and perhaps caricatures in some sense. > > I'm not deliberately splitting hairs to undermine your argument, but > rather to understand more better what all might be implied by your use > of the straw-steel idiom. I'm late to the party, having only recently > (months) let go of my archaic mapping which was roughly opposite > yours... in that "straw-good because it is designed to be discardable or > an armature to plaster over into a more elaborate model" vs "steel-bad > because it likely represents premature binding". -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
I would separate been criticized in a fair way from being sideswiped, e.g. to a boss, to peers, or in public. Yes some people can’t even handle having their ego injured in private. But if someone is going after you in a way that can hurt in a substantive way, then the one must consider a response (indirectly or directly). The worst is someone like Trump that misleads in private, only to maul on Twitter.
> On Apr 9, 2021, at 7:17 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Yes, I definitely consider them effigies. But I don't focus on the antipathy so much as some sort of canon or prototype. You can do with it what you will once you have that analog. > > People often have a problem separating their *self* from their arguments. All the lip service we give to avoiding ad hominem gets completely lost almost all the time. If you make the same argument a thousand times, you begin to identify with it. So even if someone attacks the argument in a reasonable way, the person who made it feels attacked. > > Effigies help, especially political and religious ones. We see this most interestingly in video playbacks of athletes and horribly with body dysmorphia. If your coach burns you down with "You're soft! You need to be more aggressive!", it's difficult to depersonalize that criticism. But if she shows you your effigy and burns *that* down instead, then it allows you to think more objectively about your behavior and how it might be improved. > > Effigies are not merely models. They're reflective models. When GW Bush watches his effigy <https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/protesters-burn-an-effigy-of-us-president-george-w-bush-news-photo/80440447>, he should be *comforted* that they're not burning *him* down. But with the act, he has the opportunity to not be offended and to tease apart what he symbolizes. The same would be true of blasphemous images of Mohommed or Meghan Markle <https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/14/europe/charlie-hebdo-meghan-intl-scli-gbr/index.html>. > > It's useful to ask oneself how you'd feel if a group of people got together to burn your effigy? Would you react with fear? Anger? Accuse them of being stupid savages? Or perhaps wonder if you've done something seriously criticizable but provided the criticizers no refined way of criticizing? > > >> On 4/8/21 11:04 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: >> >> But (mildly?)_ obscured (to me) is whether you consider the >> straw<->steel man continuum to in fact be *effigies*? >> >> My connotation of "effigy" includes the business implied by "to burn in >> effigy" which in fact *does* apply well to the more flammable end of the >> spectrum (i.e. straw), but I don't know if you intend that aspect. >> Straw-Steel men *are* models, and perhaps caricatures in some sense. >> >> I'm not deliberately splitting hairs to undermine your argument, but >> rather to understand more better what all might be implied by your use >> of the straw-steel idiom. I'm late to the party, having only recently >> (months) let go of my archaic mapping which was roughly opposite >> yours... in that "straw-good because it is designed to be discardable or >> an armature to plaster over into a more elaborate model" vs "steel-bad >> because it likely represents premature binding". > > > -- > ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
Yeah, that's a good point. I was surreptitiously undermined at both the dot-coms I worked for. At one of them, I confronted the guy I suspected of doing so in a small meeting with his closest allies. He took that opportunity to argue to his allies that I'd been "jockeying" for some higher rung in their stupid little corporate ladder. Some of them that knew me better disabused him of his hypothesis. One even laughed outright ... knowing what a socially incompetent fool I am. From that point on, the guy stopped bad mouthing me behind my back and began trying to use me as a lever for his own pathetic "rise to the top". [sigh]
I can't help but wonder *if*, had I been the mother of that corporate baby, would I have reacted differently? ... been more angry or upset at his ladder climbing? But to be honest, we (our group of systems engineers plus a couple of executives) had already insulated the company to some extent against the inevitable corporate bloat presented by his type. So we felt safe and they eventually sold the company despite the toxic politics. During the sale, I made it quite clear to the buyers which of us were the most political and that I was hopelessly tainted by the games. But my team of Morlocks were still clean and were retained after the buy out. I *think* I'm still on relatively good terms with all of them, even the ones who played me. But who knows? On 4/9/21 7:31 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I would separate been criticized in a fair way from being sideswiped, e.g. to a boss, to peers, or in public. Yes some people can’t even handle having their ego injured in private. But if someone is going after you in a way that can hurt in a substantive way, then the one must consider a response (indirectly or directly). The worst is someone like Trump that misleads in private, only to maul on Twitter. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen -
Excellent self-examination of your meaning of effigification and effigy. I like the point of "reflective" models. It actually carries some of the qualities in my version of "straw man" which is *deliberately* weak, not so it can be torn down easily, but so nobody is offended if it gets radically reconfigured, in fact the author is naturally rooting for it being replaced/plated over with something more better. I sense that when people speak in pre-emptively self-deprecating ways... offering up their faults en-caricature so that others will either accept those faults as acknowledged or even argue against their sharpest edges on their behalf. "oh no, no, no, you are not THAT bad!". I do think the business of caricature in cartoons is useful in this way... both to make fun of (through caricature) "inconsequential things" (say like Obama's ears or his hesitant/measured style of speech" and to point at more important features but in a way that allows some plausable deniability to the caricaturist and the caricatured. I think this is part of the point you make about Hebdo, et al. Unfortunately, one culture's "inconsequential" may be "fighting words" to another.... I for example don't think I can even *guess* what the British Royal Family is hyper-sensitive to (even though I did watch "The Crown") or more aptly, what commoners like Diana or Meghan might be sensitive to (not just words but treatment) coming *from* the Royal Family. - Steve On 4/9/21 8:16 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > Yes, I definitely consider them effigies. But I don't focus on the antipathy so much as some sort of canon or prototype. You can do with it what you will once you have that analog. > > People often have a problem separating their *self* from their arguments. All the lip service we give to avoiding ad hominem gets completely lost almost all the time. If you make the same argument a thousand times, you begin to identify with it. So even if someone attacks the argument in a reasonable way, the person who made it feels attacked. > > Effigies help, especially political and religious ones. We see this most interestingly in video playbacks of athletes and horribly with body dysmorphia. If your coach burns you down with "You're soft! You need to be more aggressive!", it's difficult to depersonalize that criticism. But if she shows you your effigy and burns *that* down instead, then it allows you to think more objectively about your behavior and how it might be improved. > > Effigies are not merely models. They're reflective models. When GW Bush watches his effigy <https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/protesters-burn-an-effigy-of-us-president-george-w-bush-news-photo/80440447>, he should be *comforted* that they're not burning *him* down. But with the act, he has the opportunity to not be offended and to tease apart what he symbolizes. The same would be true of blasphemous images of Mohommed or Meghan Markle <https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/14/europe/charlie-hebdo-meghan-intl-scli-gbr/index.html>. > > It's useful to ask oneself how you'd feel if a group of people got together to burn your effigy? Would you react with fear? Anger? Accuse them of being stupid savages? Or perhaps wonder if you've done something seriously criticizable but provided the criticizers no refined way of criticizing? > > > On 4/8/21 11:04 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: >> >> But (mildly?)_ obscured (to me) is whether you consider the >> straw<->steel man continuum to in fact be *effigies*? >> >> My connotation of "effigy" includes the business implied by "to burn in >> effigy" which in fact *does* apply well to the more flammable end of the >> spectrum (i.e. straw), but I don't know if you intend that aspect. >> Straw-Steel men *are* models, and perhaps caricatures in some sense. >> >> I'm not deliberately splitting hairs to undermine your argument, but >> rather to understand more better what all might be implied by your use >> of the straw-steel idiom. I'm late to the party, having only recently >> (months) let go of my archaic mapping which was roughly opposite >> yours... in that "straw-good because it is designed to be discardable or >> an armature to plaster over into a more elaborate model" vs "steel-bad >> because it likely represents premature binding". > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |