The San Francisco Philosophy Group Message Board › Part of my View on Metaphors

Part of my View on Metaphors

Brandon C.
user 13625235
Honolulu, HI
Post #: 13
I posted this today on another site in response to a point I was making that the British in becoming more 'Secular' were in fact becoming more theocratic... the counter-arguement was that it's impossible for a judge in a commonlaw system to be both secular and theocratic in a decision. If I remember correctly, it revolved over the judge banning a christian couple for adopting over the basis they were christian and opposed to homosexuality on religious ground, the english state therefor banning such a adoption as the couple didn't accept the state's view on homosexuality in a effort to secularize the population. Half of this response has to do with that, and examples from the 12 century that I barely went into to show how his assertion was not the case... and I used the file from this week's discussion for backup (only read half of it- task for today is to finish it). I go though a long listing of cognitive capacities of the Judicial Branch of the common law system in navigating the 'Grey' between the black and white of the law. I didn't name any important famous legal jurist, as I doubt the group I'm discussion this with (mostly Nietzscheans) know anything about Lord Nottingham or Blackburn.... so I went with a general military categorization of the various elements of thinking. It's a ad hoc system not designed so much for this discussion, but figured it had a decent chance of being understood.

My views on metaphors and language reach much farther than this though, deep into the pre-lingustic (I touch upon variations of human historicalism, but not on how metaphors are related here) and other species use of history and dialectics and communal actions- mostly stuck to the instictive behaviors though, mostly the flock mentality of birds. I didn't make a solid link between this and metaphors because I didn't have to for the discussion, but if I had to, I would do it from the vantage point of music and comedy and emotive politics, largely based around Bergson's Theory of Laughter:

http://www.gutenberg....­

It's clearly mathematical in it's sociology, and I would naturally look after it as a initial impetus to thinking about it, and have thought about it for a few years in regards to 'play' and other forms of non-verbal communication such as hand signals, gestures, love making, brotherhood, troop movements, heirarchy, etc. Was a concern for me alot in the military, and still is in security. Never set out directly to learn about metaphors, but it fits in rather easily into my mindset. I know in my own mind the phonic listing, the alphabetical, the grammatical, and the actual conceptual meaning of words are heavily divorced and are rooted in memories, and memories of memories, and can be emotive or perceptual or strategic in stem, though only strategic if priorly strategized and ran tough that process conceptually via the OODA Loop. I can do that without visualizing or feeling the memory very, very fast. However, I am also prone to debilitating depression if I try to work out the tense features of past events if I repressed them, especially if unknowingly. I am cursed with Rousseau's memory.... but I also once confronting the Tense issue can develop a better than photographic memory. But never linguistically. I have for my existence to buck the tides of academic philosophy, but I know I am not the only one with this condition. I think my spelling is a root symptom. Odd, because I have high mastery over many other left hemisphere functions. Something I noted from a very, very early age.

Anyway, the reply- possibly will have to post it in two parts. Don't reply to me here, as I won't read it, but in the discussion on Sunday. He was the one bringing up gay marriage, I am merely responding honestly, and I don't think anything is inherently controversial in it, as I am hardly unique in it, nor am I anti-gay, it's just the response. Hard town here to be honest in if your not completely in agreement with that ideological status quo. Know half my family is gay. I am okay with it, but didn't want to delete this as it's a part of the discussion highlighting my thought on the issue for sunday.
Brandon C.
user 13625235
Honolulu, HI
Post #: 14
Yes, a government can be both at any given moment and in any 'singular context' both and much more, and not just governments but also individuals, and singular facts. This is a very essential factor so dearly missed in the development of the scientific method.... the inception of the question and the delivery of the response is socratic in it's lobotomization of the fact. But even here, we can't instinctively accept this.... we have to rely on Occam's Razor for the aesthetics of the response being governed by a beauty of universal compatibility and simplicity in form... but this doesn't even work, as we end up with a endless assortment of abandonment of theories based on the facts in favor of paradigm shifts (hell of a way to try to make a inherently trans-contextual field of dynamic knowledge static.... Kohl was a silly fucking man) and must endlessly juxtaposition fallacy after fallacy after fallacy detectors under a weird ass Lacanian Signifier-Sign field in order to keep the awful disturbing bundle together long enough to have a 'objective scientific discourse'. It's a damn silly, hypocritical system of saints and villains, heroes and antiheroes, of creeds and congregations, of ostracism and ascension ultimately decided by the all holy board/management who decides who and what makes the cut based off of concerns of a unscientific nature, wisely not giving a rats ass for the arguments of science when it concerns common sense and profits.

I will propose a seeming paradox of language to you, one that will strike you as odd and strange, yet can be explored in silence in a walk through a neighborhood, or in a park, or a view from your window. It involves both listening and hearing. The question is communication. We think, we talk... and by talking we communicate, feedback loops are established, we come to know and comprehend. Deception and misinformation can arise. This is the basic, standard model.

Now consider this. Why do the birds first chirp in the morning PRIOR to leaving the nest? Why do people with phones and cupboards full of food, and functioning/proven reproductive systems with much to risk ever step outside of the house on their days off if they have everything they need in terms of maintaining the immediacy of their personal intimate lives in their homes? Why does the dogs stop at hydrants and smell the urine of other animals they have never seen for years, and are unlikely to ever see again? Why do the homeless often turn mad and wild in rage when it rains outwardly, be they mentally capable or not, to a much, much higher extent than when it's sunny? Why does the closeness of a lover matter, even when words are not exchanged?

Communication in and of itself has been approached by our civilization from the entirely wrong perspective. We worship facts, and go out of our way to decognize them, and in doing so, we loose site of the impetus and the noise of the discussion.

42
'Most of the disputes of the world are about actual possessions. The popular belief that where there is much smoke there must be some sort of fire belongs directly to the intellectual age of mankind in which fire was one of the four elements into which the whole content of the universe was suppose to be resolved. Among the philosophers of our own day the disputes are almost all about words and the nature of words. But it would be risky to suggest that there are so many words there must be some underlying basis of fact; so frequently, when a laterday controversy is shifted, it is discovered to be almost virtually factless.

Nietzsche 'My Sister and I'



Metaphors are tricky, I give you this 18 page essay by the american philosopher Davidson to look over and consider: http://files.meetup.c...­

In it he notes the actual meaning of a key word in a poem can morph and change over time, but not the poem itself. Remember that these things... poems are inherently musical and are narrative. Beat and meaning. But there is always a listener, and a listener must approach the poem.... one cannot listen to it passively out of the background subliminally to comprehend the meaning, for at best only fragments are going to be picked up, all to often related to the listener (did someone just say my name) or enticing or crude.... (wtf?). Now go back and consider the words.... and the songs of birds. Some songs are very general themes, such as mating, but most are just songs of being. I am here.

'I am hereness' is a amazingly crucial factor in determining the beginnings of communications (only from this can we decide when a question or a anthromorphic-theriomorphic event happens). We enter into a tree falls in the forest paradox, and can delineate that with studies that show people are more likely to smile or laugh watching a movie with others than alone. We can further factor it with a question of cabin fever in terms of isolation and remoteness and the viability of long term survival, or why lonely, socially rejected men have a higher impulse to rape, why women who've had traumatic upbringings sexually are more likely to be wild yet socially submissive sluts preaching the shadow of their individuality and liberation. We begin to enter into the realm of social-sexual politics. We revert back to the forest, to the birds singing.... we see a flap of wings, a dart, and move forward, not one, but two birds in flight, sometimes many more. The cry of a predator erupts, and all the birds, even those safely hidden, erupt instictively into a just previously NON-EXISTENT flock.

I want you to comprehend this. A non-existent flock exists and reacts PRIOR to it's existence, as if it was PART OF THE CONVERSATION ALL ALONG. It exists for it's part dependent upon the conversation, and may die prior to the end of the conversation.

In everything we do and say, much like the pissing sniffing dogs, and the habits of countless other social animals, even the communal ants, is communicative, but it's also communion based. The jews carried a tabernacle through the desert and were NOT allowed to, for the most part of the tribe, to EVER LOOK AT IT. Only in the holy of holies was it looked upon, and all too often the priest looking at it died horribly (because it apparently was a big ass electrical battery and the dumbfuck opened it up and attempted to chest bump god/a arc vault). The basis of our society, and government is found in the actions and non-actions of communication. This is the inherent vault of all dialectics.... a dialectic looks at the administration and response of the focus, it pays no eye or consideration to the large picture in the sense that the related but much more environmentally inclusive and ambitious concept of tactics. Tactics are 'factual' yet just like the flock of birds (a instinctive tactic in and of itself) comes in and out of existence, and must consider a wide, wide range of psychological values and individual perspectives of the individuals on the interior/exterior lines of humanity (the chinese concept of guest-host in warfare would be better, or the concept of offense or defense in the western sense somewhat useful in a few senses, but overwhelmingly inadequate in several others- so I'll stick with interior-exterior for now until I see evidence you understand a wider military vocabulary, no offense, but it's all exacting and very precise terminology with a long history).
Brandon C.
user 13625235
Honolulu, HI
Post #: 15
Every tactic fits into a tactical synthesis- a left-brain to right brain to left brain or vice versa) accounting of the manifold forms that the forms of a tactic can be used. This is not strategy. This is not the Judical concern of the grey between the black and white of the law so common the concern in common law countries using precedent and legislative/constitutional intent as the determining factor of a judgment.... but it is a beginning, and a requiem at times, to it. We are left if the question here of the transmutation of the tactical synthesis (think the manifold possibilities of a contained in the parts and operations of a chessboard unleashed into the multiplicity and seemingly limitless potential of the forms of the real world) into statecraft. Legislation from the bench. THE PRECEDENTS OF PRECEDENTS. The historical precedents of the process itself, stretching back to antiquity in actuality and the historic as can be known and felt and psychologically tugged at in the confusion and milling of the judical mind knowing every decision taken has a effect on countless other interpretations and decisions and understandings taken elsewhere. From the statecraft, we enter into your denial, that the secular and the theological cannot exist at the some time.... that there is some sort of failsafe. There is NO DAMN FAILSAFE. Warnings of fallicies erupts, but just as quickly doubts and premonitions of danger and threats and profits and ideals and utopias and ruin. Lifestyle comes into play, corruption, time variables and the expectations of the executive based on personality and character analysis, on a study of it's history and current events, or the intent of a jury, the possibility of a unorthodox and perhaps rightfully passionate jury well ready to dismiss judicial guidance in coming to conclusions...... the welling of the universe is inverting and diverting, swirling and swallowing the entirety of god's creation in these moments..... as a momentous occurence happens, the judge transcends the realm of even statecraft, and enters into the philosophic, of a analysis of the self, shifting through the axiomonic slush, the placements of truth and reliability, the transvaluation of values..... and if pressed hard enough, unafraid, reaches out further into the strategic, becoming a strategoi.... the stragegists, like promethius, decending back down to the earthly realm, beinging something new.

But all too often the jump from the statecraft to the philosopher is too heavy and bearing of a weight for the mind of a judge. The judge scoffs in his prejudice, strips over a fallicy, and in the confusion of the psychological melee, reaches out in grasphing after the shadows of this catatonic desert for a known fact, a assurance of acceptibility, of potential pleasure over pain as it was learned from elsewhere... or as the bet is hedged, less likely to inflict pain and can be explained in terms of congruency and precedent, even if alien, still functional and can be studied by others, discoursed upon, disseminated 'objectively', and 'depersonally', remaining a nation governed by laws and not by men. In this action, the very foundations of the state can be disregarded, the revolutions and hard won victories, hard learned trials and history that brought the people to this position, giving authenticity and authority to the judge in the first place, giving a formalization of the judicial practices, and the way of life and the social cliques that are so very enjoyable and enticing. The most natural course is to reach out into the communicative sphere upon which we learn, HAVE LEARNED, into the historic realm of our mind.

We are a civilization that reads and writes, of long wrought knowledge. The troubadour is entertainment for us, not a means of disseminating ancient knowledge of history, reality, and self like in older times for us, as it still is for the singers in iraq and iran of the horrors of alexander's conquest, or for old inherited bar songs of lands and places of oldertimes long since forgotten but still loved and regarded more for the emotive than the geographical pleasures it potentially can distill to us. The forest mantras of the most ancient songs of the hindus, and the required prefection in learning it to the degree of modern ornithologists being able to hear a mantra and track down the bird and it's habitat hundreds to thousands of miles away are not the history our judges of the common law call upon, it is not the history of the totem standing for centuries marking and determining the character of the tribe for countless centuries even when migration occurs, it is not the importation of gods like Dionysius from south-eastern sri-lanka to the west (perhaps vice versa- Nietzsche appears to think asia minor if I interpreted the spear analogy correctly).... but the arts of the historian and the reader of history, of our concept of 'reasoning' objectively and subjectively from this, of fossilized forms inherited from far distant ages, explained and distributed via countless metaphors. The judge can so easily reach out and adopt this elemental fact of ease, safety, and security. Upon orienting to it though, the FACT CHANGES, the background possibilities of other facts morph in terms of the ANALYSIS of the DIALECTIC (but not so if not touched by the dialectic- we can come to our senses as well as revive older ways of thinking upon maturity from the accepted point of view later on, using the tactical synthesis to a exploration of the limitations and comparisons of the dialectic itself..... from here wisdom flows), the fact becomes thought, the thought moves through the mind, and finds expression via the conduits allowed to it.

Now what becomes increasingly important here is Ibn Khaldun's concept of the sirvival or anachronisms in a society EVEN AFTER A CONSTITUTIONAL OR IDEOLOGICAL OR TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE OF THE SOCIETY IN WHOLE OR IN PART. The fact was judged (I will go into the word judged here some othertime, it's not pertinent to this discussion, or your likely avenues of response) as safe enough, is brought forth.... and it plays it part.... we all jump up in our reactions, ideological, economic, social.... the flock f birds emerges, life goes on, and on, and on.

The character of the people beings to shift. Older forms of governance, from earlier times begin to emerge. Enyone else notice the International Court of Justice in Europe has a precedent in Papal Temporal Authority, it's arguments of sovereignty extra-territorial jurisdiction, and it's immunity and exclusive rights to prosecute the otherwise unprosecutible on socially minded moral grounds of the sanctity of the court and the rights of the innocent and unrepresented, neutral, and uninvolved 'peasantry'. It's swallowed up in part by accident and in part purposely the entirety of Roman Catholic Just War Theory, and in doing so has committed itself as arbiter of a centralized authority NOT IN EXISTENCE, a authority it can recognize at it's choosing, be it the united nations, NATO, a alliance of any type between states, even individual states. Mandate isn't a concern here as it is in asian just war theory, or American Neo-Roussean legality or warrants via a due process administered by the functions inherent in a seperation of powers checking the authority of each part.


Brandon C.
user 13625235
Honolulu, HI
Post #: 16
So, like you, I don't think it's equally valid in terms of lifestyle, but so long as the individuals are not chocking a important social bottleneck..... such as becoming a self perpetuating higher caste passing on in their wills one 'generation' after another their wealth in asymetrically larger and larger loads their capital over what a breeding family that has to invest in it's children can do in terms of it's inheritance, I am okay with it.... just make babies. I do have a psychological concern of course for those not born gay (and I assume this is MUCH higher than you) or can become gay with ease who decide to just give up from a bad relationship or two and become gay out of Nietzschean ressentiment against 'relationshipism or godhead as he did for so long'.... it's not healthy for a gay person to be secretly straight and in the straight closet fucking the same sex confusingly out of defeat and revenge anymore than a gay person staying straight outwardly doing so out of fear of social repercussions and a duality identity issues, living in a sham lifestyle.

It's when you start asserting theological tools, the 12th century revival or marriage laws (another issue, if I follow cezar correctly was a issue to nietzsche- there was considerable debate and microrevolts agains the papacy in the late 11th centuries, heavily during the vatican directed secularization of europe to break the princes monopoly on power against the weaker bishops- theoretically giving the bishops a ally in the supposedly much easier to control local church going elites) and its ideological approach to secularization as a component to reorganizing the family structure in both a literal and moral-ideological sense. Furthermore, it's surprising this is happening right along side four other events of the exact same era.... 1) the Doomsday Book method of exacting census and taxation- 2) Dubois' Exchequer (the american concept of the IRS, Department of Treasury, and Secret Service with some serious military authority under it) use of limited but deeply penetrating slash and burn raids against increasingly harder to defeat and fortified opponents, 3) Expulsion of subjective to objectified and thus by that means vilified scourge elements such as the Jews from England due to failed understandings on the English' side on how Usury works, and moral considerations inherited from countless poorly understood foreign sources, 4) The increasing breaking with the Knights Templars and their military-social pacts, not to count their banking-land-logistical capacity, with the return of the English Crusaders and the melding of the native aristocracy with that or the Normans in response (see Ivanhoe if your not willing to do the research yourself).

This system of parallels go farther, I stopped there, and can continue if asked. The twelfth century was the height of the theological.... it was a good thing for the people on a whole, increased accuracy for taxation meant the government was better able to coordinate it's resources and authority, and better administer government, it also gave the government targets to aim at chessboard wise for the taking of lands- both private and church own, on flimsy legal pretense. Why do you think the monarchy of England is so freaken rich today (I am aware of the money sharing agreements of the monarchy currently, I've looked over it's estate funding and how it trades it for a smaller but more politically correct stipend voluntarily- but they still have the legal right to it), and why the theological power of the catholic church was so easily broken under henry the eight, and Tocquerville looked to England on his work on Pauperism? It's economy and self succifiency was broken. However, this is NO LONGER A FORMULA FOR SUCCESS. The state run church isn't going to so easily yield any lucrative results thanks to the magna carta, and the old cried of anti-pauperism is financially unsound, though for Dawkings brings in the money and congregations still for his reformation, and is quite wise from a selfish perspective to do so.

The policy of slash and burn techniques over investing siege is transparent in Libya. England put a lot more effort into the Faulklands for much less in returns economically than any paltry amount of oil from Libya can. The anti-imigartion issues resemble rather closely the old Jewish concerns of the alien 'red headed (irish?)' foreign jews. The immigration issue is centered on economics more than social issues.... the immigrants for the most part can easily blend into british society. It's not surprising to me in the least at the same time hysteria over socialism is the chief concern the counter-point of anti-immigrant nationalism is rising. For damn good reason too, the precedents are there from history. It's not going to be as easy as opening up the commonlands of the village green and the west country's forests this time for development.... cause it's already been taken up and developed.... cost is dramatically higher, and overpopulation is felt much higher than then.... though they protested and fought much harder then than now. The breaking with the Knights Templars is translatible to NATO and the international system of banking, and it's doing much to unify the political haves and the suppressed socialist have nots into a new political system.

Brandon C.
user 13625235
Honolulu, HI
Post #: 17
The significance of the fight between the Theological and the Secular didn't evolve for many centuries, only just prior to the end of the hundred years war, the Tudor struggles, and finally the Renaissance and the Machiavellian orientation to politics during the Civil War and the chaos of the denominations fighting during it, from which Hobbes emerged. The secularization was used theologically by the papacy, as the theological was used secularally by the princes. However, the rational seeds of discourse had to be laid then to garnish local support, to feed the esprite de corps of their following, to give impetus to supportive elan by those allies who they otherwise could no support save through shared vision. As Machiavellian and pragmatic as it was, it was also sincere. Men's identity and sense of self did not melt away. Kings and the people still saw holiness in the church, Robinhood recognized the authority of the sheriff over that NOT OF HIS OWN CONCERN in a Max Stirner sense (reason there are no robinhoods today is no cromwellian weaponry or rights to self defense, and Du Picq- which the british are a strong adherent to- lacan noted this in his visit to england after the war indirectly- but we see in their literature and protest and movies the intent is most definitely there, though impotent). What needs to be understood is that the evolution of these patterns arose from a recoil.... a fundamental recoil against a fundamental part of the mind- the strategic capacity, and a reversion to formulas from older eras. The ENGLISH ARE RETURNING TO THEIR ROOTS. The question isn't are they becoming more theological while claiming it's secular, they clearly are.... what is of issue is why are they returning to this safe era of their history that seemingly is the birth of the modern concept of the kingdoms, do they comprehend the conditions that brought it forth, and how dramatically they differ, and the repercussions that MUST result in following suit with a poorly thought out series of pleasure-yielding strategemata that only sorta still apply to their modern situation? The English are in need of some serious soul searching, a barbarism sits upon their horizon if they do not do so quickly. The inherited formulas for the Progressive Navigation of Conflict are deteriorating quickly, the half life of the elements of state forged 9 centuries ago are depleting rapidly and are about to transmute into lower elements, fundamentally changing the chemistry of state. They must adapt, or prepare for the coming chaos of the self.

Interesting, birds flock in the approach of a predator, but not the slow desertification of their habitat, which is even more lethal to them, leading not to just a individual death, but extinction. The sands of time are creeping. The world is changing. The birds must migrate, or soon chirp their last song. Language only comprehends the need to migration in the emotive and the mystical hysteria, it's a meaning beyond meaning in terms of a dictionary understanding of every word, and slips directly from the linguistic into the strategic, behaving psychologically as a phantasm beheld out of the corner of a eye in the dark of night....
Brandon C.
user 13625235
Honolulu, HI
Post #: 18
okay.... that message took four posts to post and not two, sorry. That's it above. I didn't enter into the relationships of the Strategemata to the ability to SEE conceptually in your environment, though Strategy and Strategemata has the same root, they are two very seperate functions of the brain- as it's visually based communcation- proto-methaphoric for those of you lost in linguistics if not accepting the Apocryphal Nietzschean quote from my argument above. A strategic mindset doesn't need necessarily a visual template to commence from (in the main public library, the recent work 'The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire has as it's very last article debating whether or not the Romans could think strategically minus the visualization of maps is a good starting point to the underlying philosophy- the appendix dealing with this is quite short and to the point).... would be innanly difficult to maintain that for long beyond a shapeless white glow. I figure it's the bleeding of the brainwaves jumping non-linearly much like the fluttering of halogen or florescent lights on a unbalanced electrical circuit.... I can even hear the static feedback sometimes and the pain in my frontal lone region (at least it feels like it's coming from there- doubts I can actually feel inside my brain like I can my skin). I know this was a very important concern to Hildegard von Bingen back in the twelfth century as well- but far, far from England, and takes shape in the history of discouse of medieval christian psychology of the mandala system she devoloped (a non-language based proto-metaphoric system as well- the Tibetian Buddhists down in San Jose focus alot on a system of dualism in their mandala system that is similar, but focuses more one bridging the hemispheres to comprehend different layers of meaning in the actions and elements you have to orient to in the icons. Hildegard appears to be already heavily bi-lateral.... hence here sensation of the white glow I sometimes get when thinking in the wrong patterning.... it's heavily compassion based.

Anyway- she's had a massive influence on the medieval understanding of the psychology of theoria-theosis- and was massively influential catholic system of spacial memorization in medieval mnemonics of using sequential play in words, which is FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT to any understanding of Analogies and Metaphores- as well as how people who cannot speak the same language can still communicate via metaphor- one simply CANNOT have a serious discussion on the subject without tapping this very long tradition. It also is a great segway into explaining how various aboriginal systems of mathematics, from chinese handcounting to sandtables and checkcord cloths to rock distruibution and the roman system of counting overtuned by archimedes sand reckoner and arabic script and the concept of zero evolved, and why so many react to THE MATH ITSELF metaphorically, as the Marxist did in Marx's static division of the economics of the class structure, or accepting Mathus interpretation of the potato famine as ideological instead of what he saw as objective. The war against Usury that was the continual bane of the medieval jew is a good example. Others saw communications and intent where the jew did not. Metaphors where there were no metaphors from one side's perspective popped up. Propaganda and Spin has it's roots here in how the mind processes information.

Have a feeling this discussion is going to collapse and languish in a discussion of linguistics though. It's a pity, as it has great philosophic potential. I don't see us moving beyond a recitation of what our teachers taught us of how the parts of speech worked back in high school though, or of some random pop-philosopher of linguistics trying to get his tenure on a untouchably boring subject few will bother to call him on. This discussion as the potential to strike at the very roots of consciousness.... but we won't dare do that. We must offer up first the definitions of what a adverb is, and debate it endlessly. This is my point of view, if it breaks the stranglehold of linguistics, I will be overjoyed, but severely doubt it. So many directions to take it. So very exciting. It's going to be so boring. Pity. What was linguistics to Helen Keller when she comprehended the intent of metaphors before the noun water?
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy