michael,
when you say you just wanted to differentiate metaphor from analogy by their
form then the distinction between containing "is" vs. "is like" is
important. but "literally true" or "literally false" is not a distinction
of form, it applies truth conditions and makes reference to something
outside the linguistic form. in the case of metaphor, there are no truth
conditions to satisfy or not. forcing them on metaphor hides what a
metaphor does behind an inappropriate propositional logic.
you say that "Once one has identified something as a metaphor, then one can
gain all of the
virtues of plural interpretation that we all agree are valuable." multiple
interpretation, ambiguity, is not a necessary property of metaphor. i
earlier mentioned the argument is war metaphor. i think the entailments are
pretty clear and i would even say predictable and precise, except it cannot
be handled by propositional logic. a metaphor provides a powerful shortcut.
tim,
we are very much on the same page, except that i would not want to relegate
the effect of using a metaphor to a feeling. undoubtedly, feelings are
central, like the feeling of having to struggle with an opponent while just
talking. indeed, metaphors work within embodied phenomena while
propositions need not and usually don't. but there is also a cognitive,
more specifically conceptual component to metaphor that interests me. when
we say "design is weaving" design comes to be seen that way. as i said
earlier, most inventions, think about ben franklin's electricity, start with
a metaphor. they change the way we see the otherwise unstructured
perception and how we act on our world.
whereas michael talks about multiple interpretations, what interests me
about metaphor is the importation of structure in an area where we don't
know that much, which is just the opposite of ambiguity.
klaus
klaus krippendorff
gregory bateson term professor for cybernetics, language, and culture
the annenberg school for communication
university of pennsylvania
3620 walnut street
philadelphia, pa 19104.6220
phone: 215.898.7051 (O); 215.545.9356 (H)
fax: 215.898.2024 (O); 215.545.9357 (H)
usa
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs in Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Tim Smithers
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 7:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Metaphor and Analogy ...
Dear Michael,
You say:
"Tim says that the truth of "design is weaving" is
irrelevant. I disagree. As I said (23/07/03) it is
the literal untruth that cues us to interpret this
as a metaphor. Therefore the truth value IS relevant,
BUT only as the spur to a particular type of
interpretation."
But what if you don't know that "designing is weaving"
is literally untrue? It would seem, following your line,
that the cue doesn't work, and the metaphor then fails.
But this is not what happens. If you know what weaving
is, then, independent of whether you know the statement
to be true or not, a feeling for designing is conveyed.
If you don't know what weaving is, then the statement
has no impact, again, in dependent of whether it is
true or not.
I don't think there is any interpretation going on
here. Metaphors don't work because they are correctly
identified (by their literal untruthfulness) and then
properly interpreted. They simply generate feelings
in the receivers. They are speech acts--spoken actions
that have impact. What, if any, truth value might be
assigned to them has no impact.
Your shot!
Tim
|