Yes "Design is weaving" is the correct way to state
the metaphor in the linguistic context differentiated
by Klaus. But I would argue that saying "Design is
like weaving" is a more "modern" statement of
metaphor, one that does not have to be literally false
or a strict comparison. Design is "like" weaving in
certain respects. Not literally, but metaphorically
and the metaphor is not entirely false. Something in
weaving is appropriately applied to design and
therefore possesses a likeness that is useful in
certain situations. (Note this qualification regarding
context.) The plurality of allusion is not sacrificed.
Rather the transfer of a valid understanding requires
a comparison of contexts, and a fit requires likeness,
adaptation or utility.
In an analogy likeness is more of an assertion than a
search for an appropriate likeness within a
metaphorical space.
But truth be told, analogies such as the one involving
the fish and the bicycle do invoke a search for
meaning. Question: is the meaning conveyed(the meaning
construed by the recipient)intentional and assertive
on the part of the author or a consequence of the
context in which the analogy is presented, or both?
Regards
Chuck
Dr. Charles Burnette
234 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: +215 629 1387
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael A R Biggs [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 5:51 PM
To: Charles Burnette; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Metaphor and Analogy
I would like to respectfully disagree with Chuck and
Ken, and say something
briefly about metaphor and analogy.
Firstly "design is like weaving" is not a metaphor.
The reason is that [in the linguistic context
differentiated by Klaus]
metaphor states something that is literally false. It
therefore need to
make an assertion rather than a comparison, e.g.
"designing is weaving".
The power of the metaphor comes from the plurality of
allusions that this
[literally false] assertion makes. To this extent I
agree with Chuck that
"It is only when transferred understandings are
recognized to be
appropriate in the new context that one has really
successfully applied a
metaphor;" although, of course, one cannot determine
whether this condition
has been met.
Analogy, on the other hand, makes a comparison of a
specific form: A is to
B as C is to D. "A woman needs a man like a fish needs
a bicycle" has the
form of an analogy. We infer the relative need of a
woman for a man from
our supposed greater appreciation of the relative need
of a fish for a
bicycle. This is called "argument from analogy", an
activity much frowned
upon by logicians and Aristotelians because it is
unspecific about which
aspect of female need is unfulfilled by men in ways
that fishy needs are
unfulfilled by bicycles. For example, we might
understand that both
bicycles and men are unsatisfactory modes of
transportation for either
whereas they might seem equally satisfactory as
objects of derision.
Have a good Summer
Michael
At 15:35 22/07/2003 -0400, Charles Burnette wrote:
>Lubomir wrote
>
>"Any attempt to look for other relationships might
>discredit
>the use of use the metaphor and might provide reasons
>for rejecting the
>argument."
>
>I agree. I believe that the use of metaphor in design
>is just such an attempt to explore the relevance and
>credibility of ideas (or to convey an understanding
of
>them).
>
>A metaphor indicates a "frame of reference" where
>understandings in one domain may afford
understandings
>potentially applicable in another. Ken's example
>"design is like weaving" identifies useful
>information,
>structures,forms,behaviors,technologies,expectations,
>associated cultures, etc. only some of which will be
>appropriate in a given situation. It is only when
>transferred understandings are recognized to be
>appropriate in the new context that one has really
>successfully applied a metaphor. The criteria for
>metaphorical fit may vary from being extremely fuzzy
>(as in the design of poetry perhaps) to being highly
>technical and explicit (the action of a weaving
>machine) it is the process of applying metaphor that
>needs operational explication and support at any
level
>(even if the process is never overtly manifested and
>thus may appear to be implicit.) I think your use of
>the term heuristics needs definition when applied to
>metaphorical thinking.
>
>Regards
>Chuck
>
>Dr. Charles Burnette
>234 South Third Street
>Philadelphia, PA 19106
>Tel: +215 629 1387
>e-mail: [log in to unmask]
******************************************************
******
Dr Michael A R Biggs
Reader in Visual Communication
Faculty of Art and Design, University of Hertfordshire
College Lane, Hatfield, Herts. AL10 9AB
United Kingdom
Telephone +44 (0)1707 285341
Fax +44 (0)1707 285350
E-mail [log in to unmask]
Internet
http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/creac/html/intr
ombiggs.html
Coordinator of the Centre for Research into Practice
http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/cr2p/index.htm
******************************************************
******
|