Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams
From: williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: On the value of metaphors
Message-ID: <3410@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Aug-84 18:17:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.3410
Posted: Mon Aug 20 18:17:57 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Aug-84 03:44:24 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 115



	Ripping you to shreds is not pleasurable empathetically.
	I will attempt to explain this gracefully:

> How is an entity identified, and what is its environment? In what
> way is an entity subject to its environment? If the entity and
> the environment are separate, how does the environment go about
> affecting the entity? What is the nature of an entity?  How is it
> identified other than by its causal interactions?  What does this
> really say? 

	This might adequately be described as a partition. It is 
a way of describing a portion of observed space that has some 
measure of isolation, as opposed to being part of a homogeneous 
mass. It is understood that there is no complete isolation, only 
a degree of isolation where influence is applied. A simple test 
for primitive identity is whether or not you may pass your hand 
through it. The space contained within that entity is isolated
from your direct access. You are free to influence it, but it 
will not do your bidding simply because you wish it to. The key
word here is INFLUENCE. An entity is seperated by a partition and
can be described in a way that distinguishes it from the rest of 
the universe. You might also call it a correlation. From my 
understanding, an entity is enclosed within partitions defined 
within a context that allow it to fulfill certain criteria of
independence.

> Since we can only observe correlations, but not inherent natures,
> this seems pretty rock-solid to me.  Causation is as certain as
> the universe chooses to make it.  As long as the correlations
> hold perfectly, it is certain.  But what possible argument can
> you make for a claim that the laws of the universe won't be
> totally different tomorrow? Do you see that saying "because they
> have always worked that way" assumes the conclusion? 

	Long term observations have reinforced our perspective of 
the universe. The universe WILL be different tommorrow, but in a 
very gradual manner. The possibility of my waking up in a 
universe where none of the laws of physics applied is SOOOO 
small, I choose to show my confidence in this fact by choosing a 
strong word to describe it. Tommorow, the laws of physics as we 
understand them WILL still apply.

> It is a matter of the definition of "know".  All you need are
> beliefs which have reasonable predictive ability in order to
> function.  I can know that 2+2=4, which is totally independent of
> the particular nature of reality, although I never would have
> gotten around to finding that analytical truth without having
> synthesized it from aspects of reality.  I can believe very
> strongly that the sun will rise tomorrow, although I can't
> possibly know it. Kant accepted his dichotomy without it
> hampering his ability to function in the "real" world, so I find
> statements like yours very strange. 

	Again you choose a word that is too weak to adequately 
describe your certainty. I take the position that these words 
need not be restricted in use to only systematic languages. In
reality, nothing is absolutely certain, but why cut off a portion 
of the language that is very useful in order to satisfy this? 
Wouldn't it make alot more sense ( and be alot more descriptive )
to modify the childish meanings of these words in your own mind 
in order to communicate with those who might not be as 
enlightened as you appear to be.

> This is the same line you take with cosmology, and it rings of
> Von Daniken. I am also against people swallowing things whole,
> but I see little evidence that most philosophers who share a
> position with other philosophers, whether conventional or not,
> got there with any less deep thought and analysis or more
> sheeplike behavior than what led you or people you happen to
> agree with to your positions. 

	If you insist on relying strickly on your own 
definitions, then you will be cutting yourself off into your own 
entity, possibly more than your might actually care to. If the 
symbol isolation means anything to you, try this one:
I do not feel as though it is in the best interest to reduce the 
variety of words we have to choose from in communicating, on the 
contrary, I feel as though we should let the vocabulary expand.
Intelligent language must have metaphors, it is how you are able
to develop language at all! If you insist on trying to enforce 
your distinctions on the populace, especially the young and 
inexperienced, you will not find them receptive. You will be 
cutting off your foundations. You will be driven mad by those who 
refuse to follow your rules of definition. If I could suggest 
anything to you, I would suggest a good book on Psychology. 
Philosophy has a definite value, but you should be cautious that 
you are not distorting the symbols you present. There is no need 
to undermine another's self confidence in order to meet your 
criteria for accuracy. You are basically faced with the problem 
of quantisizing reality in communicating, and by trying to apply 
universal context to words, you impose limitations in 
articulation. I am willing to let my words imply a level of 
strength of symbol interconnection, and let the words I choose be 
a measure of confidence. This is NOT sheeplike behaviour. I just
refuse to accept your simplified version of the language.

> -- Jim Balter (ima!jim) 

A metaphor is like a beam of knowledge shining through a cloud of 
nonsense. What was once dark, is now visible. It is a puzzle 
where the pieces interlock, and is built upon foundation. An 
analogy of symbols. A means of growth. A gratification that makes
learning at all worthwhile. A common ground. A certain grace.

	Hopefully this has proved valuable to you.

	----{ john williams }----

(DEC E-NET)	KIRK::WILLIAMS
(UUCP)		{decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams
(ARPA)		williams%kirk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
		williams%kirk.DEC@Purdue-Merlin.ARPA