Analogy, Comparison, Designing, and Metaphor

I'd like to join this battle in the lines on side
of Klaus, in which I also see Lakoff and Johnson.

To say that "designing is weaving" is to make a
metaphorical statement.  This (whole first sentence)
is  a declarative statement whose truth few would
dispute, I think.

But, as Klaus says, to say that "designing is weaving"
is not supposed to be a declarative statement whose
truth we can discuss.  As he says, truth is irrelevant
here: it does not try to say what designing is; what
doing designing involves.  Rather it tries to say what
doing designing feels like. We use this metaphor not to
try to say something about what designing consists in,
rather to try to say something about what doing designing
feels like.  Metaphors appeal to our feelings and
experiences to work, not to objective likenesses, or
non-likenesses.

If we want to appeal to likenesses we can use analogy.

"Designing is like riding a bicycle" -- we need to keep
our balance all the time.

"Designing is not like driving a car" -- we don't have
to go just where the road goes.

These statements try to say something about what doing
designing involves or does not involve.  But they are
not intended to try to convey an idea of what designing
feels like: designing doesn't feel like riding a bicycle,
not to me, at least.  (I don't think it helps to understand
designing to suggest that it does feel like riding a
bicycle.)

(I would also add here that making an analogy is not
to make a comparison.  An analogy picks out one or two
likenesses, or non-likenesses.  A comparison tries to
identify all likenesses and non-liknesses.)

Now, I would say that a good understanding of designing
requires an understanding of what it feels like to be
doing designing.  It is not just a matter of knowing
the truth and falseness of what doing designing is like.
If it were it would be wrong to tell someone that designing
is weaving.

Let me illustrate the importance of knowing-what-it-feels
-like understanding, as opposed to objectivist kinds of
understanding, by recalling the desk-top metaphor behind
the design of many computer interfaces today.  To say
that the computer interface is a desk top is not to
try to say what it is like, it is to say how it feels
to use a computer with this kind of interface. Of course,
you may or may not agree that it feels like being at your
desk, but this is not the point, nor does  disagreement
make this statement false: there is no truth value involved
here; it's a metaphorical statement.   Nonetheless the use
of this metaphor has helped a lot of people get on do
things with their computers.

Good metaphors change the way we feel about things,
which changes the way we understand things.  They do not
change the way see things: good analogies can do that.
And they too, can change we understand things. (Which, you
will note, I am unable express without using metaphors a
la Lakoff and Johnson, but you understand what I mean,
right?)

Best regards,

Tim Smithers
Donostia / San Sebastián