[Humanist] 27.289 enumeration and modelling

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Tue Aug 27 08:51:05 CEST 2013


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 27, No. 289.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org



        Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:10:46 +0100
        From: Arianna Ciula <ariannaciula at gmail.com>
        Subject: Re:  27.283 enumeration and modelling
        In-Reply-To: <20130814201640.0295D2F7B at digitalhumanities.org>


Sent from my iPhone

On 14 Aug 2013, at 21:16, Humanist Discussion Group <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk> wrote:

>                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 27, No. 283.
>            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
>                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
>                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
> 
> 
> 
>        Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 19:11:13 -0400
>        From: Paul Fishwick <metaphorz at gmail.com>
>        Subject: Re:  27.279 enumeration and modelling
>        In-Reply-To: <20130813204721.3723F2DA8 at digitalhumanities.org>
> 
> 2. Arianna: tell me more about reifying constructions - I find that reification
> is a natural component of metaphor creation, and so presents abstract
> information in a new light that may be more understandable.
> 

Dear Paul,

Absolutely. We need to create models - whether in our head or in the world out there, whether of or for something. I guess my appeal was more against idolising than reifying. Following Willard's thread on enumeration and classification, my metaphor was put forward against seeing these models as fixed vocabularies rather than dynamic languages. We need vocabularies too of course, but especially when such constructions are in the form of thoughts and not things, it is easier to loose detachment and pass them for truths or for the true reality.
So the classification matrix, for instance, can take over what's being classified and trap it. Which is fine if we maintain a certain distance, if we know it's a model, it's to understand better and beyond, to grasp what can't be easily trapped.

Hope I am making some sense here.

Arianna

 
> 
>>> 
>>> I hope the above is sufficiently full of holes to allow a breeze of 
>>> conversation and argument to blow through it :-).
> 
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Humanist Discussion Group <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk> wrote:
> 
>>                Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 27, No. 279.
>>           Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
>>                      www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
>>               Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>       Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 21:39:33 +0100
>>       From: Arianna Ciula <ariannaciula at gmail.com>
>>       Subject: Re:  27.278 enumeration and modelling
>>       In-Reply-To: <20130812201314.94C2F2FE2 at digitalhumanities.org>
>> 
>> 
>> My favourite button too. 
>> 
>> The psychiatrist? don't we all? naming, enumariting,  classifying just to reach another turn in the spiral - the problem comes when we are tempted to reify our constructions and forget they're just a leverage in the act of interpreting, scaffolding in fieri, they are to be overcome.
>> 
>> Arianna Ciula
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On 12 Aug 2013, at 21:13, Humanist Discussion Group <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>>               Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 27, No. 278.
>>>          Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
>>>                     www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
>>>              Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>      Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 06:08:12 +1000
>>>      From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
>>>      Subject: Re:  27.265 enumeration and modelling
>>>      In-Reply-To: <64c58b616f524d40b3f452fe9eb7218a at AMXPRD0310HT001.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
>>> 
>>> Dear Paul,
>>> 
>>> In the following, Humanist 27.265, you've responded to my note on 
>>> classification by querying what sort of modelling I had in mind, and 
>>> what I meant by interpretation. I really meant no more or less than 
>>> modelling cultural artefacts or expressions computationally, as when one 
>>> marks up a text or constructs a shape-architecture and produces other 
>>> shapes from it. I didn't have the distinction between modelling and 
>>> simulation in mind but would be especially pleased if we went off on 
>>> that tangent. By interpretation I meant any statement or even momentary 
>>> thought by which an ambiguity is (partially) resolved -- including, I 
>>> suppose, by metaphor.
>>> 
>>> I hope the above is sufficiently full of holes to allow a breeze of 
>>> conversation and argument to blow through it :-).
>>> 
>>> Yours,
>>> W






More information about the Humanist mailing list