Allegory and argument discussion from P&CE

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
Let me see if I understand you. You seem to be saying that an argument rendered in story form removes the author from the argument, so that one can argue only about the idea. Is that correct?

I see no reason to accept your thesis. Why would the form of the argument remove the author. It is true that most arguments are presented in a non-fiction form, but by no means all. We've had theses presented as allegories, as quotations, as poetry as pictures and as LOLcats. Why would story form remove the author.

One of the principles here is that people should own their words. You wrote it, you are responsible for it.

I agree. A debate, or argument, is a debate or argument. The particular form used doesn't affect the substance of author agency. All the dancing around doesn't change that.
 

dfwtinman

Cubic Zirconia in the rough
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
470
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Let me see if I understand you. You seem to be saying that an argument rendered in story form removes the author from the argument, so that one can argue only about the idea. Is that correct?

One of the principles here is that people should own their words. You wrote it, you are responsible for it.

Gosh O 'mighty,

Since you have raised the topic of "owning one's words," you might have at least "owned" that the thesis you've just rejected isn't at all the thesis you've been ascribing to me (oh, and rejected too), Surely that's fair.

While you've still not stated my thesis as I would, this is much closer. Let's see:
"You seem to be saying that an argument rendered in story formallegory may remove s the author from the argument, so that one can argue only aboutthe reader can concentrate squarely on the idea. Is that correct?"

With those deletions and insertions, this is substantially correct.

Perhaps if I remove myself yet again and let another's words be heard:

Originally Posted by Captcha
I think one of the advantages of using allegories is that they remove the participants of the argument from their comfort zones and fall-back positions and biases. I would think that this sort of removal would be especially valuable in the realm of US politics, with its binary nature and knee-jerk loyalties.


As for me "owning my words", I've can't imagine what more I can do. You've just quoted several examples. Here's another:

It would seem logical that allegory can have a place in an argument -- if only because it can be a tool to help all parties frame a point in a reference(s) they can each understand. But this means that the point gathered from the allegory can be objected to. However, as an allegory is apt to be an incomplete description or framing of the argument/point, how much further flawed does it become if we try to use the same allegory to respond in the original argument? At some point that allegory must either modify or be discarded.

Makes sense, but I think it may depend on the allowable tolerances for the application in question. The devil hides in the details, but sometimes the details are just noise. Estimating can be a useful tool.

Let me speak more plainly about my decision. The budget debate (like so many these days) is polarizing. Many, in my view, approach the budget topic from a highly partisan POV.

If there is a "shut down," it's my view that both sides of aisle will bear some degree of material fault. A number of posters in both camps seem unshakeably certain that only the other camp bears even a modicum of fault. My concern was that expressing my view would result in both sides placing me squarely in the other's camp. As a consequence, my post would come to nothing; "a failure to communicate," as Strother Martin might say.

My thought was to remove both myself and my point from the immediate field of battle. That is, to improve the odds of communication by de-escalating the tension. Whether it worked at all depends on whether anyone was more receptive to the idea of shared responsibility after my post.

Incidentally, "the abyss" in the allegory was irrelevant to my point. It simply represents a consequence of intransigence. Personally, I find the rhetoric of fiscal doom to be self-indulgent in some cases and deliberate fear-mongering in others.

As far as I can reckon, Good Willebee's hunting (as he created this thread) tracked all my of my posts on this subject. I think I've sufficiently owned my words by any fair measure.
 

dfwtinman

Cubic Zirconia in the rough
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
470
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
I agree. A debate, or argument, is a debate or argument. The particular form used doesn't affect the substance of author agency. All the dancing around doesn't change that.

I'm generally good with this.

In the precise case in point, however, it was not my intent to "debate or argue," at least not in the formal sense. Nonetheless, I did sincerely hope to add to the discussion by, just once, interjecting a short, and I'd hoped mildly amusing, allegory. This isn't so different from other types of interjections one might encounter: a revealing joke or a well-phrased quote. Even in highly formal debates or high-stakes trials, an advocate may enlist a short parable in service to the campaign (Clarence Darrow and others were well known for this).

As I said in another post, used in moderation, I don't see why this should be an issue.

I would add only this, in reference to your comment about "all the dancing around." Respectfully, I don't see that one short and simply worded post, no longer than a caudate sonnet, constitutes much dancing around.

Any way, your comments are appreciated.
 
Last edited:

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
I would add only this, in reference to your comment about "all the dancing around." Respectfully, I don't see that one short and simply worded post, no longer than a caudate sonnet, constitutes much dancing around.

You've been dancing and piroutteing for pages and pages. What all that has to do with sonnet form escapes me.
 

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
As far as I can reckon, Good Willebee's hunting (as he created this thread) tracked all my of my posts on this subject. I think I've sufficiently owned my words by any fair measure.

Not exactly. I will agree that allegory gives the opportunity to look at a situation separate from any baggage the recipient may feel the presenter brings with the problem. But it is no guarantee of that, and it does not divorce the presenter from the argument. Said presenter still owns the burden of their argument. One of the problems of allegory is that the presenter also owns any miscommunication the allegory "brings with."
 

dfwtinman

Cubic Zirconia in the rough
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
470
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Not exactly. Said presenter still owns the burden of their argument. One of the problems of allegory is that the presenter also owns any miscommunication the allegory "brings with."

Here's the thing:

One can read, re-read, deconstruct and commit to memory each and every post in this thread and yet not find a single post arguing that my allegory does not square with reality or is in any manner materially flawed, far less a post presenting an argument as to why. Not one. I am being 100% genuine in stating this.

Instead, each and every post (at least any that address the allegory) has been solely about the nature of allegory, the attending strengths and weaknesses, and proffered opinions about the burdens of argument. And for each and every one of these posts, I have responded to the best on my ability.

I say this with absolute earnestness and respect. If anyone can find an example of an affirmative criticism of my allegory in this thread, then, by all means, point it out. Similarly, if anyone can find an instance where I have not responded to an argument concerning "allegory theory" or any actual argument, again, kindly cite the textual support. I do not say this as an affront to anyone or to throw down a gauntlet or anything of the sort.

Let me also be clear that I am not in any way defending my allegory as having lived up to even the loosest standard that anyone cares to judge it by. As an objective matter, I've already said the allegory may have been "apt or awful." I haven't moved from that stance. As a subjective matter, the allegory itself is sand in my shorts.

I'll end this post by saying I have zero desire to respond now to some argument not already made in the several days since the allegory was first posted. There may have been a thousand valid objections. But I can't see how I can be faulted at this point for not rising to the challenge of an argument as yet unmade.
 
Last edited:

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
As with any other form of modeling an allegory can and should be judged not just on its artistic merits but on how well it models the aforementioned real world beings, objects, circumstances, and actions.

I haven't read beyond this response, so maybe I'm repeating a question. If so, sorry.

It's important, I think, to give *some* allowance in an allegory, isn't it? It can provide a avenue for agreement. In dfw's example, keeping the ship from falling over the edge is something we all can agree with. And we really *are* arguing back and forth about which direction to turn.

So that allegory doesn't account for the politicking around Obamacare, or for the GOP party politics with the Tea Party movement. It represents a good, broad model of the problem faced in the government funding debate(s), doesn't it? If not why does it not? Perhaps the issue can be used back on the allegory to judge the fitness of the latter?
 

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
Here's the thing:

One can read, re-read, deconstruct and commit to memory each and every post in this thread and yet not find a single post arguing that my allegory does not square with reality or is in any manner materially flawed, far less a post presenting an argument as to why. Not one. I am being 100% genuine in stating this.

I don't think anyone is arguing that point, are they? I thought that portion was left over in P&CE. I thought we were discussing whether or not, by using an allegory to make a point, one could actually separate oneself from the argument.

I could be wrong about that being the discussion. I've napped.
 

dfwtinman

Cubic Zirconia in the rough
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
470
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
I don't think anyone is arguing that point, are they?...
I could be wrong about that being the discussion. I've napped.


Well, hmm. I guess it was my net takeaway from the following:

from Richard
I see no reason to accept your thesis.

...people should own their words.

You wrote it, you are responsible for it.

from ColoradoGuy
A debate, or argument, is a debate or argument...All the dancing around doesn't change that.
...

You've been dancing and pirouetting for pages and pages.

by dfwtinman

As far as I can reckon, Good Willebee's hunting (as he created this thread) tracked all my of my posts on this subject

I think I've sufficiently owned my words by any fair measure.
from Williebee
Not exactly.
...

...the presenter also owns any miscommunication the allegory "brings with."

So....that's roughly how I got there. I took your comment through the filter of what had preceded. My bad and my apologies.
 
Last edited:

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
No worries. I was hoping to avoid the confusion by separating the discussion of allegory from the topic that raised it.

Looks like I was not completely successful.
 

dfwtinman

Cubic Zirconia in the rough
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
470
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Looks like I was not completely successful.

So few things in life are ever completely successful. Not in the long run. Somewhere along way I was taught that entropy was time's arrow. Sounds about right. ;)
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,115
Reaction score
3,031
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
So anyway. Allegory has two functions: pedagogy and propaganda. They are both tied into allegory as model and allegory as moral lesson.

The pedagogic function relates to the use of allegory as teaching a proper course of action. In this function, the purpose of the allegory is to impart a procedure by which to do things with warnings about the dangers of doing them wrong.

Pilgrim's Progress has a great deal of pedagogy in that it is trying to teach how to live a Christian life and what dangers will come along.

The Journey to the West does the same for a particular branch of Buddhism (although it has much better special effects than Pilgrim's Progress).

The reader of such an allegory ends up with a map of proper actions with vivid warnings signs for what to do and not to do, as well as some guidance in individual circumstances.

The purpose of the moral in pedagogic allegory is to make clear what the end result of following the path laid out will do.

Allegory as propaganda is not so much concerned with getting people to follow a way as it is with seeking that people take up a certain allegiance. It will tend toward focusing on the moral rather than actual process. It will tend to lack particulars and focus only on reward and punishment. It often amounts to an attempt to create virtual behavioral conditioning.

The Ship of State example in Antigone fits this pattern. The purpose of the allegory there is to tell everyone to shut up and do what the king wants. For a Broadway version of the same idea, see the Guys and Dolls song Sit Down, You're Rockin' The Boat.

ETA: These two purposes create venues and aspects of allegory that open up ranges of argument. It is rational, indeed often necessary, to challenge the allegory in either or both of its pedagogic and propagandistic aspects. The necessity comes from the fact that readers are more accepting of stories than they are of direct arguments. Suspension of disbelief is a part of the act of reading a story, but a critical eye is more often used in direct argument.

Propaganda allegory therefore often relies upon the suspension of disbelief to bring its ideas across.

MetaGodwining: There was an intriguing SF novel entitled the Iron Dream written in 1972 by Norman Spinrad. Most of the book is a pulp SF story about an invasion by dangerous mind controlling creatures. The hero is a classic pulp hero type (tall, blond, strong, smart, inherently moral, etc).

But framing this pulp novel is a discussion of the novel's author. A German named Adolph Hitler who emigrated to the US and became an SF writer. There is discussion of the writer's attitudes, and SF fandom's positive reaction to the work.

By framing the story thusly, Spinrad is revealing the pulp novel as an allegory for the Nazi world view. He is also critiquing the pulp attitudes as inherently Nazilike because of how much his pulp hero resembles the standard pulp heroes and his villains (blatant allegories for Nazi attitudes toward Jews) resemble standard pulp villains.

He is also bringing the reader's critical mind to bear while reading a story that might otherwise be read with suspension of disbelief.
 
Last edited:

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
Looks like I was not completely successful.


Once upon a time there was an Allegory. It supposed a flat world and seemed to reference a con-artist named Amerigo (Vespucci I presume).

Complete success seems unlikely. As the I ching Says:

The first SIX, divided, shows the caldron overthrown and its feet turned up. (But) there will be
advantage in its getting rid of what was bad in it. (Or it shows us) the concubine (whose position is improved) by means of her son. There will be no error.
 

Poet of Gore

Banned
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
71
Reaction score
3
It would seem logical that allegory can have a place in an argument -- if only because it can be a tool to help all parties frame a point in a reference(s)

I predict with the rash of people telling other people how to think and because groupthink trying to push its own morality on everyone else, i think that allegory will become more popular than ever. with people getting fired over tweets and fb posts and etc, the smart people who want to say something that goes against what is currently allowed, will use allegory.

cool thing about allegory is that you can say whatever you want. usually the people who are sympathetic to your view will understand you, but the people you are kind of taking shots at will not get it. Like writing in code.
 

rwhegwood

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
323
Reaction score
44
Location
MS, USA
Relevant Quotes (I think) from Sculpting In Time

“We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means. I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it's a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it.”

Andrei Tarkovsky

“In theater actual blood cannot be convincing as a demonstration of poetic truth if it merely has meaning on one level, as a natural function. Blood in cinema, on the other hand, is blood, not a sign, not a symbol of anything else. Therefore when the hero of Wajda’s Ashes and Diamonds is killed surrounded by sheets hanging out to dry, and he presses one of these to his chest as he falls, and his scarlet blood spreads across the white linen to make a red and white symbol of the Polish flag, the resulting image is more literary than cinematic, even though it is extraordinarily powerful emotionally.”

“There are people who want to know about everything in the minutest detail, like accountants or lawyers. But show a toe sticking out of a hole in a sock to a poet and it is enough to produce an image of the whole world in him.”

“It is obvious that art cannot teach anyone anything, since in four thousand years humanity has learnt nothing at all. We should long ago have become angels had we been capable of paying attention to the experience of art, and allowing ourselves to be changed in accordance with the ideals it expresses. Art only has the capacity, through shock and catharsis, to make the human soul receptive to good. It’s ridiculous to imagine that people can be taught to be good…Art can only give food – a jolt – the occasion – for psychical experience.”