Etymology of 'Philosophy'

Following up on a post from yesterday where I introduced the Linguistics blog metaphorhacker.net, language again comes up here at the on-line etymology dictionary entry for "philosophy" from our Tom's studied Ludwig Wittgenstein:

[Philosophical problems] are, of course, not empirical problems; but they are solved through an insight into the workings of our language, and that in such a way that these workings are recognized -- despite an urge to misunderstand them. The problems are solved, not through the contribution of new knowledge, rather through the arrangement of things long familiar. Philosophy is a struggle against the bewitchment (Verhexung) of our understanding by the resources of our language. [Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Philosophical Investigations," 1953]

We have the empirical problem solved (MMT assertions are observable and mathematically true) so I guess that leaves this a purely "philosophical" problem.

This quote from Wittgenstein then leaves the solution to all of this a matter of "arranging things long familiar" which I think I can see what he means here and probably agree with it strongly if I understand him.

So we don't have to come up with new knowledge in this, humans have demonstratively possessed the knowledge of how to design and operate a system of state currency for thousands of years; this is readily apparent from a cursory review of the archaeology and the ancient manuscripts we have available today; only a moron would think not (and they probably do!).

This knowledge that we (humans) once utilized has been hidden or covered for quite a while now, through almost 2,000 years of rampant human subjection to metals (can you believe it!) with the resultant chaos and carnage born of this "metal-love".

Well, we've somehow been made able to throw the yoke of these metals; and this knowledge of state currency systems once utilized by our human ancestors has been again revealed to currently a small group of us, but obviously, virtually all of humanity continues to remain in the dark on all of this and continues to operate as if we are still under the metals.

So according to Wittgenstein, this now comes down to a struggle against a bewitchment of our understanding via certain language techniques the morons use that we can perhaps study and operate against.  Among these are the metaphor and metonymy.

Not that which is entering into the mouth is contaminating a man, but that which is going out of the mouth, this is contaminating a man." Mat 15:11

The morons sure can spew garbage out of their mouths that is for sure...

metaphorhacker.net

Interesting blog I came across, by Dominik Lukes that exposes some of the "tricks of the trade" or figures of speech, used in language as the primary means of subsistence for the falsehoods that we routinely challenge here.

This post from the blog primarily focuses on the figures of speech termed metaphor and metonymy, these two which I see as running rampant through the language that we see the morons using all the time.

Among these are the govt is a household metaphor, the actual word "money" as a metonym, the word "capitalism" again as a metonym, US government securities issuance is borrowing metaphor, etc.  All of these figures of speech that we routinely see and confront acting to support the terrible falsehoods currently working against our own human economic interests.

Some interesting excerpts:

Some people (like George Lakoff himself) maintain that the distinction between metaphor and metonymy represent a crucial divide. Lakoff puts metonymic connections along with metaphoric ones as the key figurative structuring principles of conceptual frames (along with propositions and image schemas). But I think that there is evidence to show that they play a similar role in figurative language and language in general.

there is a big difference in how the imagery works in metonymy and metaphor. Most of the time we don’t notice it. But when we become aware of the rich evocative images that make a metaphor work, we think of the metaphor as working and those images illustrate the relationship between the two domains. But when we become aware of the images that are contained in a metonymy (as in the examples above), we are witnessing a failure of the metonymy. It stops doing its job as a trope and starts being perceived as somehow inappropriate usage. But metaphor thus revealed typically does its job even better (though not in all cases as I’ve often illustrated on this blog).

we also reason by metonymy in daily life when we pay homage to the flag or call on the president to do something about the economy.  [Ed:  !!!!!!  Dominik, this is NOT metonymy!  There is no "invisible hand" brother!]

Warning in conclusion I have often warned against the dangers of overdoing the associations generated by metaphors. But in many ways metonymy is potentially even more dangerous because of the magic of direct connection. It can be a very useful (and often necessary) shortcut to communication (particularly when used as compression) but just as often it can lead us down dangerous paths if we let it.

We should probably study up on these linguistic techniques at least a bit in order to perhaps be better enabled to combat them.  Dominik's blog here seems like at least a good starting point.

I know Bill, in his recent initiative of examining the language or 'framing' we are using in our communications and debate definitely has metaphor firmly in his sights, but I would say based on Dominik's observations here, the perhaps more nuanced and elusive metonymy is an even more critical support structure of the false that we can target.

Randy Wray — A New Meme For Money: the EEA presentation

We need a new meme for money.

...We need a social metaphor, a public interest alternative to the private maximization calculus. We need to focus on the positive role played by government, and its use of money to serve us well.

Economonitor — Great Leap Forward
A New Meme For Money: the EEA presentation
L. Randall Wray | Professor of Economics, UMKC

Randy Wray — A Meme For Money, Part 2: The Conservative Framing

Next installment in the series on framing MMT is up. Comment here, there, or both.

New Economic Perspectives
A Meme For Money, Part 2: The Conservative Framing
L. Randall Wray | Professor of Economics, UMKC

We need a new meme [frame] for money.

That meme would emphasize the social, not the individual. It would focus on the positive role played by the state not only in the creation and evolution of money, but also in ensuring social control over money. It would explain how money helps to promote a positive relation between citizens and the state, simultaneously promoting shared values such as liberty, democracy, and responsibility.

The conservative view emphasizes individual freedom. What's not to like about that. Opposing it is like opposing mom and apple pie. The challenge is to show that it is insufficient as an ordering principle of society which is what government provides. Conservatives are just as committed to "law and order" as they are to "liberty." In fact, when push come to shove, literally, they prefer law and order. The ongoing undermining of constitutional liberties to "fight terrorism" is a good example of this preference.

As George Lakoff observes some people are uni-conceptual but most are bi-conceptual. Uni-conceptuals have a rigid and doctrinaire conceptual framework that is defined by norms.

Lakoff posits that those who are uni-conceptional define the political extremes of right and left, while those who are bi-conceptual define the moderate center right and center left, as well as voters that self-described as independents.

Uni-conceptual people are unlikely to be converted, but they are not dominant in the voter pool on either right or left. Each side needs to capture the center, the bi-conceptuals.

Bi- (and I would say multi) conceptuals hold values belonging to both extremes, sometimes at once — and they are not always clear on which trumps the other. They can be convinced with the right narrative.

Opposing freedom with some other value is a tough sell without resorting to fear. That is not a good choice. Rather, a more nuanced approach may be more suitable, that is, showing how key values are complementary rather than antagonistic.

Most people are not anarchists. They are very suspect of arguments that reduce government beyond a certain point because they know that the likely result is disorder rather than greater freedom. It is only a small percentage of the population that thinks arming individuals is the way to increase freedom and order simultaneously and automatically.

Similarly, most people are aware that the challenge since the Enlightenment and its political manifestation in the American and then French Revolutions has been to harmonize individual freedom, social justice and fairness, and solidarity in community — Liberté, Egalité, et Fraternité.

It is not a big step from there to create a social and political narrative based on both freedom and order under the rule of law in a liberal democracy as "the American way," as well the mosts successful social and political "experiment" that humanity has conducted on a vast scale. Most modern people already buy into this in one way or another.

The challenge then becomes creating an economic narrative that not only fits this framework but also is capable of delivering on its promise of distributed prosperity through an economic system that is the material life-support system and means of progress of a free people who are safe and secure in an ordered society that is dedicated to the common good and general welfare.

The basis of this narrative is in the preamble to the U. S. Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is amplified in the conclusion of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, where he speaks of "government of the people, by the people and for the people."

Government is about management with a view to public purpose. Management is about efficiency and effectiveness. According to Peter F. Drucker, "efficiency is doing things right, and effectiveness is doing the right things." The commonly understood goal of macroeconomic aspiration is the harmony of growth, employment, and price stability. 

Most economically significant political issues concern these goals and how best to achieve them. MMT has an answer that resolves this trifecta harmoniously, showing that the issue is real resources rather than affordability. That should be the basis of the narrative.

"If we can, why not. If not now, when?"

George Lakoff — Why It's Hard to Replace the 'Fiscal Cliff' Metaphor

Apropos Randy's lastest on framing. George Lakoff explains neural circuitry.

Writers on economics have been talking since the election about why the "fiscal cliff" metaphor is misleading. Alternative metaphors have been offered like the fiscal hill, fiscal curb, and fiscal showdown, as if one metaphor could easily be replaced by another that makes more sense of the real situation. But none of the alternatives has stuck, nor has the fiscal cliff metaphor been abandoned. Why? Why do some metaphors have far more staying power than others, even when they give a misleading picture of a crucial national issue?

The Huffington Post
Why It's Hard to Replace the 'Fiscal Cliff' Metaphor
George Lakoff | Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley

The Metaphor of Conceptual

One thing I've noticed about the false people, both the people caught up in falsehoods and those dispensing falsehoods, is a consistent and often repetitive use of metaphor instead of simple facts or mathematics. (e.g. "Fiscal Cliff" anyone?)

This is out of my area (I am most comfortable with numbers), but I feel I have to get involved here in the semantics because I believe that we who are led to seek to help our fellow citizens reach a full understanding of our monetary systems will not be able to help all of the people we encounter to understand these truths through mathematics.

Many among us do not possess the mathematical cognitive gifts to be able to have these truths revealed to them through mathematics.  Therefore, part of the battle will have to be fought in a completely semantic theater, this does not look like it will be easy (especially for me).

I've made the observation that in individuals who cannot sort out the truth mathematically, it seems all they have available to them is a sort of "appeal to authority" in their quest to discern truth.  They have no choice but to "believe someone else", they have no other option.

It also seems there is no shortage of other individuals who seek to have others believe their falsehoods, and it looks like at least one weapon they use in their quest to deceive is the metaphor.

I came across this blog (looks like it is shut down :( ) where this gal is looking into metaphor.  And she cites an interesting procedure one can run through to detect  metaphor:

I shall use an example from “Metaphor. A Practical Introduction”, 2nd Edition, by Zoltan Kovecses. He quotes the Pragglejaz group and their “metaphor identification procedure” (MIP):

1. Read the entire text-discourse to establish a general understanding of the meaning.

2. Determine the lexical units in the text-discourse:

3. (a) For each lexical unit in the text, establish its meaning in context, that is, how it applies to an entity, relation, or attribute in the situation evoked by the text (contextual meaning). Take into account what comes before and after the lexical unit.

(b) For each lexical unit, determine if it has a more basic contemporary meaning in other contexts than the one in the given context. For our purposes, basic meanings tend to be

• More concrete (what they evoke is easier to imagine, see, hear, feel, smell, and taste)

• Related to bodily action

• More precise (as opposed to vague)

• Historically older.

Basic meanings are not necessarily the most frequent meanings of the lexical unit.

(c) If the lexical unit has a more basic current-contemporary meaning in other contexts than the given context, decide whether the contextual meaning contrasts with the basic meaning but can be understood in comparison with it.

4. If yes, mark the lexical unit as metaphorical.

(Pragglejaz Group, 2007,p. 3)

So this is a formal process where we can detect even metaphors that are very subtle looks like.

It seems we humans probably cannot communicate semantically without use of metaphor, so use of metaphor by itself is probably not "bad" per se, but we must realize that metaphors are NOT technically the truth or perhaps better they are not reality.

As a quick recommendation (I'm just getting into this), I would encourage truth seekers who are semantic to at least challenge those who continuously dispense metaphor, challenge these people to abandon the use of metaphor and simply explain themselves using facts and perhaps limited mathematics.

If the dispenser of the metaphor CANNOT do that, continue on to seek another authority who can.

J. D. Alt — The (Semantic) Problem with MMT: An Exercise in Framing

This is really good, and timely, too, in light of recent discussion in the comments here.

The problem with framing is the key issues involving framing are moral (normative, prescriptive) rather than factual (empirical, descriptive), as George Lakoff never ceases emphasizing. So much so that a presentation that focuses on fact may for that reason alone lose the argument before it is even mounted, due to poor framing of the issue.

Read it at New Economic Perspectives
The (Semantic) Problem with MMT: An Exercise in Framing

by J. D. Alt

A problem here is that most people presume incorrectly that the currency issuer must fund itself, which is a contradiction. The illogic is based on false metaphor of government as big household or firm. This leads to the wrong notion that one's taxes are funding specific spending, even though taxes go into a general fund and it is not possible to establish precisely where one's taxes go anyway. But let's just assume that people can look up the percentage distribution of the budget and figure how their taxes were spent overall.

The truth is that taxes do not fund the currency issuer, but rather they make currency issuance possible by creating demand for the government's currency, and there by allow government to provision itself with real resources through spending of the currency it issues, as well as to fund through transfers in which there is no exchange.

The question then becomes what metaphor to use to replace the erroneous currency issuer is like a currency user metaphor that is current and has moral appeal by leading to the question, "Am I getting my money's worth from the taxes I am paying in terms how the government is disbursing it."

The obvious way to think about this is in terms of taxes paying for specific programs by funding them, using the analogy of personal spending and household and firm budgets and accounting.

The reality is that taxes do pay for all programs by making them possible, even though the taxes are not used specifically for funding in the way people falsely believe. Is there an appropriate metaphor for this that can be substituted for the wrong thinking that solves the framing problem by resolving the moral issue?