Chap wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:59 am
Lem wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:40 am
I still like my caption, but upon investigation, yes, your expression does seem to fit in to this thread rather well!
Glad you like my metaphor! I hope that it effectively parallels two dimensions of parts of this thread:
1. The ox gains nothing from the activities of the lute player, and carries on chewing grass and from time to time emitting methane from both ends :: The intended reader of (say) Gadianton's elegant, logical and restrained post gains nothing from it, and carries on churning out utterances of his own very distinctive kind.
2. The lute player, on the other hand, has the pleasure of exercising his skill, and hence is motivated to continue playing, despite the lack of appreciation from the ox :: Gadianton has the aesthetic satisfaction of exercising his philosophical skills, and hence is motivated to continue posting, despite the lack of any effect on their intended reader.
Now that's what I call an effective metaphor: a description of a situation in context A whose patterns map in a precise and enlightening way onto a superficially completely different situation in context B.
Brilliant!
( After that, Brother Ox's "
'I am round and flat at the same time' which you would all see except every last one of you has a black and white viewfinder with only binary settings.... and also, my viewfinder is now a viewfinder/lens and ONLY I have a wide-angle one..." simply falls.... uh..flat.)
Seriously, though, these metaphor attempts are just getting nuts, so I took a look at the binary thinking book mg has been reading, and sure enough, topics include:
--Sorities Paradox
But presented as a categorization issue, NOT a comment on infinity.
--Viewfinder Principle
This chapter starts with the 'earth is round and flat' quote, but talks about looking closely vs. taking a larger view. A view which mg has now switched to, but is not the way he earlier presented it.
--Earth is round and flat quote
See above, again not used as mg tried to shoehorn it into the discussion.
--Etc. Etc. Etc.
This is pretty embarrassing, but I don't blame him for wanting to talk about what he reads, just the fact that he disingenuously tries to shoehorn every little thing into a discussion about how HE chooses RIGHT because he follows the Mormon church, and how EVERYONE ELSE HERE is of one and the same singular, secularist, Anti-Mormon, and now binary, black-and-white-thinking, bad viewfinder-setting group, all of which choose WRONGLY.
in my opinion, that's why his discussions go so badly, he is literally just here to provoke a group he thinks is different from Mormons and therefore inferior. Any cogency in his argument is completely secondary to that goal.
It does give insight into this mindset, though, which can be helpful in dealing with people like that. Sadly, I doubt he's the only one to approach the world with this Mormon vs. non-Mormon, All GOOD vs. All BAD approach. It's what makes Peterson's 'inclusivity' articles not quite ring true.