Archive for January, 2017

Neon Genesis Evangelion Rebuilt

January 30, 2017

sq_evangelionThe final movie of this tetralogy has been named:

  • Evangelion 1.0: You Are (Not) Alone
  • Evangelion 2.0: You Can (Not) Advance
  • Evangelion 3.0: You Can (Not) Redo
  • Evangelion 4.0: You Will (Not) Happen

Alternative facts are (not) fun!

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebuild_of_Evangelion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts

Seen post-post:

http://screenanarchy.com/2016/01/have-your-say-evangelion-30-10-will-not-be-made.html

[*9.198]

<+>

Advertisements

The Four Master Tropes

January 26, 2017

sq_four_tropes4My post on analogy brought another fourfold to mind, one with metaphor and its analogs.

Kenneth Burke wrote about the Four Master Tropes of “figurative” or “poetic” rhetoric: metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony. He also proposed “literal” or “realistic” versions, respectively: perspective, reduction, representation, and dialectic, and expounded on the correspondence.sq_four_tropes2

Giambattista Vico, who wrote “The New Science”, is usually credited with initially listing these four tropes, but he may have had inspiration from others. Hayden White, who wrote “Metahistory”, was inspired by Burke’s Tropes and proposed that it formed a syncretism with other fourfolds such as political ideologies, Pepper’s world views, and Frye’s literary emplotments.

References:

Frank J. D’Angelo / The Four Master Tropes: Analogues of Development, Rhetoric Review, Vol. 11, No. 1. (Autumn, 1992), pp. 91-107.

Kenneth Burke / Four Master Tropes, The Kenyon Review Vol 3, No 4 (1941) pp. 421-438

http://mererhetoric.libsyn.com/four-master-tropes

http://www.jarronslater.net/2015/08/burkes-four-master-tropes-brief-summary.html

http://faculty.headroyce.org/~denelow/English%2011/rhetoric/Mastertropes.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Trope_theorists

Also see:

https://equivalentexchange.wordpress.com/2014/10/03/hayden-whites-metahistory/

[*3.172, *4.15, *4.27, *9.182]

<>

Four Futures after Capitalism

January 23, 2017

sq_four_futuresAs conservative capitalism whips itself into an ecstasy of fevered apoplexy over the change in political climate, it is fun to step back and imagine what might transpire after capitalism’s eventual passing. To offer help, Peter Frase has written the excellent and cautionary “Four Futures: life after capitalism”.

Frase gives us four idealized futures blocked out by a matrix of two variables each ranging over two possibilities: 1) the structure of the social environment being either egalitarian or hierarchical, and 2) the resources of the natural environment being either scarce or abundant. What’s nice about the descriptions of these futures are the ample examples from science fiction media: TV, movies, novels, etc.

One assumption over all four futures is that, given sufficient resources of material and energy, technology, automation, and robotics will improve to the extent that human work as we know it will eventually be made unnecessary. Another is that climate change is real and will demand solutions and amelioration or it will only get much worse. And a big take home message is that the rich and powerful are in a much better position to benefit from ignoring climate change than you and me.

What will happen to the common person when their labor is superfluous? Not detailed are the possibilities if even the humans at the top are deemed unnecessary and the machines revolt. In order of diminishing happiness for most of us:

  • Communism: Egalitarian Abundance
  • Rentism: Hierarchical Abundance
  • Socialism: Egalitarian Scarcity
  • Exterminism: Hierarchical Scarcity

The cover has a nice iconography for the futures: a conveyor belt on a 3D printer assembly line shows a glass of wine for Communism (Cheers!), a key hole for Rentism, a watering can for Socialism, and a skull for Exterminism (Ouch!).

References:

Peter Frase / Four Futures: life after capitalism

Some better reviews than mine:

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/art-possible-peter-frases-four-futures/

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/nov/24/four-futures-life-after-capitalism-peter-frase-review-robots

Notes:

There’s a similar fourfold of futures I forgot I mentioned in my article on Trompenaars, although fragmentation-coherence is used instead of scarcity-abundance, and there is a more positive spin:

https://equivalentexchange.wordpress.com/2015/12/18/the-four-cultures-model-of-fons-trompenaars/

Also, Frase has a blog that can be found at:

http://www.peterfrase.com/blog/

[*9.82, *9.190, *9.191]

<>

Analogical Thinking

January 20, 2017

sq_analogicalIs analogy or metaphor the root of thinking? Some thinkers think so. But what exactly is analogy?

Looking at various lists of analogies of the A:B::C:D motif, I have distilled them into four groups: Relational, Hierarchical, Linguistical, and Mathematical. Are there analogies that don’t fit this scheme?

Relational

Object / characteristic
Order, sequence
Transformation
Agent / object, action
Function, purpose
Cause / effect
Source / product

Hierarchical

Classification, category, type, membership
Whole / part
General / specific

Linguistical

Meaning, definition
Synonym, antonym
Contrast, degree, intensity
Word parts
Expressions

Mathematical

Equivalence
Multiples
Negation
Patterns, geometries
Number
Size, magnitude
Direction, vectors
Spacial, temporal
Ratio, proportion

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

http://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/surfaces-and-essences-analogy-fuel-and-fire-thinking

View story at Medium.com

Currently Reading:

George Lakoff, Mark Johnson / Metaphors We Live By

To Read:

Douglas Hofstadter, Emmanuel Sander / Surfaces and Essences: analogy as the fuel and fire of thinking, Basic Books (2013)

Noah Roderick / The Being of Analogy, Open Humanities Press (2016)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functor

[*9.140, *9.141, *9.178]

<>