[MD] Core problemS

[Ham Priday]

Ron --


> "Prescriptive" is instructional. When a source is trying to convey
> meaning, by conceptualizing analogies in a specific way they are
> asking a target or receiver to follow a rational chain of analogies
> to arrive at a specific conclusion.  Consistency in that chain
> influences the confidence in credibility.

Then it would seem advisable to avoid analogy when presenting (positing) a 
concept.  A "rational chain of analogies" strikes me as illogical on 
principle.  I would think the best use of analogy is in clarifying certain 
problematic points in a concept that has already been articulated.
Do I assume correctly that paradigms, allegories, and metaphors are to be 
regarded as forms of analogy?

Since the objective of a metaphysical thesis is to convey meaning, I can't 
think of a proposition that is not "prescriptive" in this context.  Not all 
theories are metaphysical, however.

For example, last night on Coast-to-Coast a biologist was espousing a theory 
that mind, rather than DNA, controls the body's cellular functions.  He used 
the analogy of driving a car several times in his explanation.  First, he 
compared programming of the subconscious mind to learning how to drive. 
(Once the driver has completed this process, driving becomes virtually 
automatic.)  Then he made ignoring the gages in the car analogous to 
dismissing the sensory feelings of physiological distress, which can lead to 
catastrophe in either case.  Finally, he compared the dysfunctional 
individual under stress to driving a car at high speed with one foot on the 
accelerator and the other on the brake pedal, demonstrating how the body 
subjected to a continuous "flight/fight" state eventually breaks down 
completely.  Whether the doctor's theory is credible or not, this analogy 
certainly made his meaning clear.

> Virtual reality games are fun and an interesting inter-social tool,
> I think they have their merit.  What I said was how avatars can
> be used as a loophole for accountability,
>
> What it stems from, for me, is I went to school with people who
> were renaissance fair actors who would flip/flop being who they are,
> one moment you were talking to Danny the next your talking to a
> character, depending on what was going on Danny would not come
> out of character. ...
>
> You all want to know the real story? I have a hypersensitivity to it
> because I was abused by someone who used a fictitional character
> to do what they did without a shred of accountability, THEY hadn't
> done those things, didn't know what I was even talking about it was
> the character.
> So, people that mix themselves with characters freak me out. O.K.?

Yes, I can imagine what this experience must have done to you.  It's the 
most evil kind of deceit, particularly when offered as an excuse for 
inappropriate or harmful behavior.  What is sinister about these video games 
is that they provide a technological reality where violence is promoted as 
the ultimate solution to frustration or harrassment.  Instead of learning to 
work out a rational solution to the problem, avatar-type games condition 
young people to accept violent responses as "heroic" in real life.  It's 
exactly the kind of instruction we DON'T need in our irresponsible, 
trigger-happy society.

Many thanks for clarifying "prescriptive meaning" for me, Ron, and for 
disclosing the reasons for your antipathy to role-playing scenarios.  I 
empathize with you.  The world is full of nut-cases, most of whom should be 
confined to rehab houses instead of being made dependents of the 
pharmaceutical industry.

Essentially yours,
Ham