Print

---

There are might be other interpretations and reconstructions of the
metaphorical.

The very nature of the metaphor and its usual operational environment
presuppose contextuallity and implicit relationships. The moment we start
pinpointing the relationships, the metaphor loses its most important
properties and contributions. It ceases to be a metaphor any more. It
becomes a comparison that might be highly misleading, inaccurate, and
questionable. In such situations the heuristic properties of the metaphor
are lost and it becomes a liability for the argument.

The metaphore usually works well when the relationship is established only
in one aspect and the other aspects are not considered and may even be
screened away. Any attempt to look for other relationships might discredit
the use of use the metaphor and might provide reasons for rejecting the
argument.

Regards,

Lubomir Popov


At 11:55 AM 7/22/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>Responding to my confusion regarding Birgits remark:
>
>"To sum up, my point  then is; do we need to sort out
>for example these
>other kinds of uses of 'design'  as merely analogical
>language for other
>purposes (if we are not interested in design-oriented
>language in other
>kinds of situations per se)? And seek appropriate
>substantial distinctions
>also for the use of the 'professional designer' term
>thus sorting out when
>the term "professional designer" is used more as an
>analogy or used
>metaphoric?"
>
>and Ken's response:
>you (Birgit) have brought up an issue that
>may lie beneath at least some of the questions and
>terminological
>problems in the debate. This is the question of
>whether some of us
>feel that we are using the term design as a metaphor
>or an analogy.
>It may also be a matter of whether some of us read
>others as doing so.
>...In this particular inquiry, I am not using the term
>"design" as
>metaphor or analogy. Metaphor, analogy, and forms of
>sensitizing
>concepts are useful ways to approach many issues in
>the initial
>stages.
>...I would be curious to know whether people feel they
>are writing (about design) metaphorically
>or explicitly.
>
>My confusion lies in the lack of explicitness
>regarding the use of the terms metaphor and analogy.
>I am also curious about what others mean when using
>these terms with reference to design.
>
>How can one usefully express an analogy without
>explicitly saying what is analogous to what? If one
>simply alludes to the similarity between things the
>analogy remains undefined (without explicit
>relationships). While suggestive of a domain of
>thought to consider - something in the domain is
>analogous - such a reference is usually not very
>helpful and may be confusing.
>
>With regard to understanding design as a metaphor for
>something else: Is "design" the source or the target
>of the metaphor?
>If we are seeking to understand "design" by reference
>to something more familiar - What is it? If we seek to
>understand something else by reference to design we
>must have a clear definition/understanding of design
>to work from. Metaphor is often used to interpret a
>designed object in terms of something else and
>sometimes used to describe the design process in terms
>of another process that is more familiar (or
>constrained i.e. engineering, problem solving, etc).
>In any event, we need to know what metaphorical
>relationship is proposed before the metaphor can
>become meaningful in a useful way.
>
>The importance of metaphorical projection to language
>and thought has been recognized (Lakoff and Johnson,
>1980 Metaphors We Live By; 1999, Philosophy in the
>Flesh, etc). Metaphor is essential to creative thought
>and design thinking, yet, again, we have no
>operational theory related to design.