Dear Tim
In your last post you said:
"So, when I say feeling, I don't want to just mean
emotional feelings. More like, what it feels like
to "see it as", or "to imagine it as", or "to think
about it as", or "to know it as", or "to care about it
as", or "to use it as", etc." Tim Smithers
Damasio (in "The Feeling of What Happens") makes a
nice distinction between feelings (hidden) and
emotions (their expression) and Goleman (in "Emotional
Intelligence") has said that "All emotions are, in
essence, impulses to act, the instant plans for
handling life that evolution has instilled in us." p6
I interpret this to mean that emotions motivate (and
direct) intentional thought. It seems to me that one
has passed into intentional thought when they "think
about it as..." in the terms you mention. I would go
farther and say that a way of thinking has been
activated along with its constraints on the
entailments of the metaphor.
Best
Chuck
Dr. Charles Burnette
234 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: +215 629 1387
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
-----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: Monday, July 28, 2003 9:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Metaphor and Analogy ...
Dear Klaus,
You say:
"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 ... 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."
Yes, I agree. I was using "feeling" collectively
for things I didn't want to introduce explicitly,
mostly because I don't have them clear enough in
my own mind.
But, I would happily include your cognitive component,
and, in particular, take "to see it as X" as being the
same as "to feel it as X".
So, when I say feeling, I don't want to just mean
emotional feelings. More like, what it feels like
to "see it as", or "to imagine it as", or "to think
about it as", or "to know it as", or "to care about
it as", or "to use it as", etc.
And, I like your "importation of structure." This
is how, I think, metaphors change, or bring about,
understanding; they introduce structure: where
structure was not present, or a new structure.
I chose to use the word feeling because what I
think is interesting (and important in designing)
is that this structure introducing effect (impact)
of a metaphor occurs without any kind of (pre)
interpretation happening. We don't first have
to identify what the structure of weaving is before
we "feel" the impact of this metaphor on how we
see or think about or understand designing. It
is a much more direct cognitive process, and one
that underlies a lot of the re-thinking-on-doing
and reflection-in-action that characterises
designing.
Also important in designing, I think, is a
constructive
property of this structure importation effect: design
is weaving and design is painting, for example, have a
constructive impact. But if interpretation was
involved
here we would expect to have to do some kind of
resolution
of structural differences or conflicts between the
structure of weaving and the structure of painting
before
appreciating any metaphorical impact, if any.
Sequences of structure importation by metaphor gives
us a way of understanding the often very fast and
fluid
ways designers move effectively over what appear to be
wide ranges and very different kinds of possibilities,
before settling a while to work on something. I
don't think it is analogy that drives this, as it is
often said to: I think it is metaphor. But metaphor
in the sense you, Klaus, are pushing for here, not as
some kind of comparison mode, or propositional device.
Best regards,
Tim Smithers
Donostia / San Sebastián
At 10:05 -0400 24/07/2003, klaus krippendorff wrote:
>
>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
|