QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 26th September 2008, 9:38am)
Gnosimnesic Recovery from AgnosimnesiaQUOTE(Pteradactylic Vexameter @ Fri 26th September 2008, 9:13am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 26th September 2008, 11:38am)
Wikipedians have never stopped doing a Harry Potter theme, since Harry Potter is a metaphor for modern times.
By "metaphor" you mean "is" right? Because its not a metaphor. It is quite clearly about modern times because all of their characters are in it (even more so than C.S. Lewis). You could say that Lord of the Rings was a metaphor about its time (which it wasn't).
By "metaphor" I mean "metaphor", where "metaphor" is a
literary variety of analogy, model, or simulacrum, wherein the abstract internal structure is preserved whilst changing the color of the paint and the backdrop on the stage.
QUOTE(Pteradactylic Vexameter)
We need to work on your vocabulary. You keep using technical terms in a skewed way.
I am using technical terms in a technical way, consistent with
Moderns Systems Science.
Take note of the above, as it comes up again...
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 26th September 2008, 5:38pm)
QUOTE(Random832 @ Fri 26th September 2008, 9:15pm)
But the backdrop (at least, as far as the time period is concerned) is quite literally the years of 1991 through 1998. That's like saying that New York City as portrayed in Law & Order, or Marvel Comics, or anything else, is "a metaphor for" New York City. It's not. Gotham is a metaphor for NYC. Metropolis is a metaphor for NYC. NYC simply is NYC.
Besides the question if Metropolis is NYC or Chicago ( (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) ), I wonder if Moulton was shooting for the term "analogous". It would seem to be more appropriate (if there was a greater contrast, that is).
Please see above, where I actually said, "By "metaphor" I mean "metaphor", where "metaphor" is a
literary variety of analogy, model, or simulacrum, wherein the abstract internal structure is preserved whilst changing the color of the paint and the backdrop on the stage."
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 26th September 2008, 7:05pm)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 26th September 2008, 11:01pm)
I don't really think that a human whose spent his or her whole life digging up roots and chasing small or large animals for food, and has a mouth full of rotting teeth, is probably "the same" as most of us are, in many important ways.
If you are a Republican - Just look at the Democrats.
If you are a Democrat - Just look at the Republicans.
If you hate either - Ron Paul sucks you loser, get off the internet.
(IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
Barsoom Tork is a Martian Scientist (an Anthropologist and Ethnologist who studies Earth Culture, including Cyberspace Cultures).
Scientists are not politicians. We might be policy-makers who employ system models to derive optimal policies, but we are not politicians.
The reason is simple.
Politicians deal in rules, rather than mathematical functions that arise as the solution to system models. Except in very simple cases, the optimal regulatory policy for a complex system cannot be reduced to the kind of simple rules that politicians are obliged to deal with.
That same observation is the modern variation on the one Augustine made some 15 centuries ago. And it's the same observation found in the Adam and Eve story of Genesis.
All that was missing in that story was the obvious question, "What would be more divine approach?" And had the author of Genesis had the mathematical vocabulary at hand, she would have suggested that a more graceful option would be to employ a continuously differentiable function with a non-zero gradient everywhere.