Klaus, michael,kari et al.

I was not aware that I distrusted metaphor! or that I
ignore that it "structures perception and leads us to
see what we focus on in terms of other experiences" as
Klaus asserts (while dropping back into the classic
view of metaphor). Rather, I would like to capture
metaphor's power of allusion more than to dwell in the
comfortable assumption that I know what entailments
the interpreter of a metaphor is "focusing on" (An
interesting admission.)

Metaphor certainly does affords a powerful tool for
referencing understandings associated with its source
and bringing them into a dialog where they are
rendered more specific through target and context. The
operational nature of this "capture" should be of
great interest to designers. I liken it to the "Design
Stance" articulated by the philosopher Daniel Dennett.
(1987,The Intentional Stance, MIT Press or my paper,
Intentionality and Design in the DRS Common Ground
Conference Proceedings.)

It is certainly true that one may reply to a metaphor
by making explicit an analogy that it brings to mind.
I would argue (perhaps too thoughtlessly) that this is
at least one objective of the search through a
metaphorical space.

Perhaps, our readers could accept the notion that, in
everyday experience, metaphorical thinking creates a
space in which to find understanding (meaningful
entailments), while an analogy explicates those
entailments under specific constraints.

More generally, I am interested in how metaphorical
projection might be modeled in computational systems
and how such systems
might support the "surface representations" in such
metaphorically guided (intentionally directed,
designerly (sic)) dialog as Klaus describes.
Apparently, this focus on what is actually going on is
causing a lot of cognitive dissonance in those who
feel comfortable with the meaning metaphor has for
them.

Regards to all

Chuck

Dr. Charles Burnette
234 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: +215 629 1387
e-mail: [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: klaus krippendorff
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 1:22 AM
To: Charles Burnette; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Metaphor and Analogy


chuck,
you assume a modernist or representational notion of
language and then you
naturally come to distrust metaphor (much as aristotle
did) and prefer
analogy, as in your recommending "X is like Y",
inviting a reader to ask "in
what respect?" to which you may reply with the
familiar formula "A is to B
as C is to D" where A and C is of X and B and D is of
Y.
in making this move you ignore the defining
characteristic of metaphor that
it structures perception and leads us to see what we
focus on in terms of
other experiences.  metaphor means "transfer" and what
a metaphor transfers
are the entailments of seeing a present situation in
terms of more familiar
experiences from a different domain of experiences.
using lakoff an johnson's example of the well known
"argument IS war"
metaphor,  when we say
"your position is indefensible"
"he demolishes every argument i make"
"his criticism was right on target"
"if you use this strategy, he'll wipe you out"
"you disagree. o.k. shoot"
we may not literally shoot at someone, but we
certainly feel demolished when
shot at, feeling defenseless, vulnerable to being
attacked, and such
feelings are real and in the present.
if you were to say human communication is like war,
then you encourage
readers to compare human communication and war and ask
themselves "in what
respect, etc.
the power of metaphor is that we often are totally
unaware of the metaphors
we are using and live with their entailments as if
this were natural and
obvious.
metaphors in language are more plentiful than in
artifacts, i believe.  but
even the designers of artifacts are not immune to
seeing their project in
terms of more familiar experiences from a different
domain.   in fact, i
would argue that most inventions start with a metaphor
(from einstein's
gedankenexperiments to designing the pc as a
television screen with a
typewriter key board).
there are places for metaphors, metonymies, and
analogies.  it is useful to
understand their different workings, not to confuse
them
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 Charles
Burnette
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 8:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Metaphor and Analogy


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

******************************************************
******