| Topic: | Re:A Simple Question? |
| Posted by: | Ken |
| Date/Time: | 30/09/2003 19:41:51 |
|
It might help to clarify the meaning of "metaphorical". It's a common misconception to view metaphor as the analogy end of a continuum with "literal" on the other end. Like this: Literal------------------------------------Analogical/Metaphorical But metaphor is not more analogical than literal language, because all concepts are completely analogical--that is, they are based on positive analogies (sameness) and negative analogies (difference). If I say "dog" what I am refering to is both the commoness of experience between all the experiences I have ever labeled dog, as well as the differences between those experiences and the experiences I have labeled "cat" or "goose" or "christmas pudding" Since this is true of all language, the distinction between metaphor and literal language is not that one is "merely" analogical, but that what we call "literal" is more permanent--we have invested more energy in noticing the samenesses and differences because we use the concept on a regular basis. Literal/More Permanent Analogies-----------------Metaphor/More Temporary Analogies That is why, for example, many scientific concepts, such as light "waves" were originally advanced as metaphor, but over time came to be treated as literal. They had been useful enough analogies to become a regular part of the scientific vocabulary. They are no less analogical, only more permanent. Scientists have tried to circumvent the confusion about analogy by calling these concepts "models" but they are really no different than any other concept, since much of everyday language began as metaphor (temporary classification) and only became literal with time and usage. So, is all content metaphor? No. Some is and some isn't. Is all content analogy? Yes, because all concepts are analogical. All structure, or at least all work with structure is also analogical, since it is based on analogies between multiple experiences. You recognize "anchoring" for example because you draw an analogy between this case of anchoring and others you have labeled the same way. I hope this helps some, Ken |