[MD] Demanding Evidence From Theists

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Matt]
If all symbolic patterns are metaphorical, then why didn't you 
include physics, linguistics, and biology as things that can approach DQ?

[Arlo]
I didn't include a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they can't 
cast our gaze towards DQ. Many mathematicians see a inesperable 
harmony or beauty in math. And many linguists (especially the cunning 
ones... sorry, couldn't resist) see a beauty in the pattern on 
language. So of course they can cast our gaze towards the indefinable Void.

The problem, as I closed my post with, is not in the form, but in the 
impetus to literalize. I also might say that some forms of symbolic 
encoding have been so cemented over the years, it is really hard to 
get past this illusion.

[Matt]
What's this distinction between "definition" and "approach," only the 
latter of which can help us with DQ?

[Arlo]
"Definitions" tend towards literal, "approach" tends towards metaphor 
(the way I use them in my post). What we forget (and I'm thinking of 
Max Black and Carl Hausman here and other metaphor studiers) is that 
"literal" is really a dead metaphor, or a very cemented one. Hey, 
don't get me wrong, we depend a lot on literalized language. Its the 
shared convention by which much of society is able to operate. The 
trouble is when we expect more from it, when we try to literally 
define "love", for example.

[Matt]
Or, to put it another way, if all symbolic patterns are metaphorical, 
then what kind of metaphorical pattern is "definition"?

[Arlo]
Recursive? Self-referential? Can't escape them, should you try! (You 
can ask as well, what is "metaphor" a metaphor for?)