--- On Thu, 9/4/08, Thomas Seay <entheogens at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> In my fantasy world, focusing on substantial arguments
> rather than using delivery to tickle mythological sweet
> spots would be paramount. Mind you, I know what a fantastic
> notion that is, and I'm not being sarcastic.
>
[WS:] As I understand Lakoff's argument, even the most substantial arguments, including those in science and mathematical modeling, are ultimately depenend on metaphors and framing. It is that the framing in these substantial arguments is usually well hidden under the veneer of objectivity.
It is so, Lakoff argues, because all abstract concepts depend in one way or another on "embodies metaphors" of simpe everyday life activities, such as moving in space, sensual feelings and emotional states, etc. Mtaphors are "embodied" because frequent engagement in these activities changes our neural connections in a way that makes the conceptualization of these acitvitities (which involves the same neural netwroks as doing these activities) easier and more automatic.
Any act of thought, argument etc. is ultimately depends on the connections to embodied metaphors, which in turn were formed be repeated associations (which he calls framing). Consequently every abstract concept has a conservative or a liberal version, depending on th eframing that is invoked to interpret those concepts (again framing is a neurologically embedded process and is done subconsciously.)
>From that point of view, "substantial argument" that is presumably based only on "objective" facts and does not involve any 'subjective" interpretation or framing simply does not exist, at least in human form. In computer intelligence, maybe, but not in human cognitive processes.
Wojtek