tim,

i am glad we see metaphors very similarly.

your use of the word feeling directed my attention to emotions.  when i
suggested that metaphors also have a cognitive component, i didn't mean to
imply that conscious thinking is involved, such as comparisons.  maybe we
should use the word "intuitive" to describe the immediate obviousness of the
structure that a metaphor brings into a present perception and by
acknowledging that this is an embodied phenomenon, the body is always
involved and the feeling of being comfortable with the stucture that is seen
is necessarily part of it.

good for you to point out that metaphors have a constructive quality.  i
couldn't agree with you more.  if they work, metaphors use experiences from
a familiar domain to see a less familiar or less adequately structured
present domain.

one could say that design is based on two fundamentally different processes:
(1) planning and prediction, extrapolations of a domain of experiences,
which stays within that domain
(2) metaphor, structuring a future by drawing on experiences from a
different domain

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: Tim Smithers [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 9:02 AM
To: klaus krippendorff; [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