| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor) |
| Posted by: | Todd |
| Date/Time: | 24/10/2003 03:47:34 |
|
Jon, Thanks for the great post. It gave me some wonderful ideas and certainly points to some other ways to construct metaphor in addition to the one I posited. I don't believe that the model for creating a metaphor that I presented is the only one or necessarily an ideal one. I created it so illustrate the point about the form of the metaphor being content on another level. From your reply I think you got the gist of my point. This part of your post leads me in another direction and to another thought experiment... >The idea of FORM is interesting. If we say that form is an abstraction of the pattern that you perceive in their content, then to describe that form to the client in a metaphor could give them a useful second description (a new perspective) of their problem.< Cool! It also points to a really powerful aspect of metaphor that I hadn't considered... The "resonance" (connotations?) that a given metaphor has. Again, an example... Suppose you created several metaphors that were isomorphic to the clients representations just as a method of reflecting (i.e. not moving toward solution at the same or different logical level) back their representaions. How does the content of these strictly isomorphic metaphors influence the clients map. I am too lazy to construct an example in detail, butr let's say that given the relationships in two isomorpic metaphors are the same (by definition) but that in one metaphor the related objects are fish and in the other they are grains of sand. How does this influence the clients map? It seems obvious that it will. Is there anything general that we can say about these things? Another thought experiment to sleep on (in, around, under, over, well you get the idea... :-) Todd |