Amusement

[andrewducker]

All language is metaphor. Some people will like your metaphors, some people won't, but unless you're talking about the most technical of subjects (and preferably using maths) you're iretrievably dealing in approximation, metaphor and the like.

It therefore amuses me quite a lot that a fair amount of the discussion on this post yesterday is people talking about what metaphor they'd like better than mine. Which is fine, but it's not going to stop me liking mine more than theirs.

The other half, of course, consists of people who haven't actually read all of it, and having picked up on me saying "I've stopped trying to fix myself" have chided me that it's still possible to improve oneself, thus indicating that they didn't read the rest of that paragraph where I said "I'm still learning" and that there's "always work to do".

Number of people commenting who aren't trying to correct something that's either incorrectable (because it's down to personal choice of metaphor) or didn't need correcting (because I didn't say what they thought I said): 3.

Comments

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

All language is metaphor.

No it's not. Unless that's a metaphor...

[andrewducker]

Yes it is. And no it's not.

Language is description.
Description is based upon perceptions.
Perceptions are inaccurate and approximate.
Descriptions are therefore designed to get across simplified versions of things. And in a way, the word "cat" is designed to get across a certain kind of "cattishness" which isn't actually any specific cat, but rather a metaphor for catdom in general.

This was pretty much the point of the first paragraph and a half of the quote I made here:
http://andrewducker.livejournal.com/1087168.html

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

That might be the point, but it's one I disagree with.

It's like saying "fruit is apples". Metaphor is a type of language. If you want to say "language is inherently metaphorical", that's one thing. But language is the shared use of a set of memes represented in the brains of users, roughly. That's an imperfect description, but I think it's better than saying that language undermines its own purpose.

[andrewducker]

But language is the shared use of a set of memes represented in the brains of users, roughly.

Interesting definition. I'd say that _a_ language is a set of representations of memes held in common by the users of that language. But I can't see how "language" in general is a set of memes.

Hmmmm. More thinking required.

[andrewducker]

Oh, and I think that while language doesn't undermine its own purpose per se, it's an imperfect communication method, because of the differences in understanding of any particuar language and the inherent vagueness of definitions.

[johnbobshaun.livejournal.com]

If you want to be more precise, I can put my semiotic wank-hat on and say that language is a series of encoded signs decoded as signifiers.

[andrewducker]

Nice hat.

And yes - encoded signs. Signs, as we all know, aren't the thing, but referents to the thing. The thing itself is unreachable, all we have are things that remind us of it. i.e. analogies and metaphors.

[johnbobshaun.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely convinced that a signifier is the same as a metaphor. Or whether an metaphor is the same as an analogy.

But I feel like I'm just arguing semantics.

[andrewducker]

What we need... is an ontology.

*runs away*

[johnbobshaun.livejournal.com]

Depends on exactly what you mean when you say "ontology".

*runs away in opposite direction*

[andrewducker]

Thinking about it further "analogy" might be a better word than "metaphor". But the various definitions of the two seem to be both different and interchangable, depending on which ones I read.

[thishardenedarm.livejournal.com]

actualy I think the lad has a point; anything beyond the bare use of the indicative, the old Augstinian chestnut of pointing at the thing whilst making the noise, anything more than that is going to be metaphorical.

There is some really interesting work done by Lakoff and Johnson (unfortunately the most boring prose stylists on earth) summed up in this:

"Metaphor is for most people device of the poetic imagination and the rhetorical flourish--a matter of extraordinary rather than ordinary language. Moreover, metaphor is typically viewed as characteristic of language alone, a matter of words rather than thought or action. For this reason, most people think they can get along perfectly well without metaphor. We have found,on the contrary, that metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature."

and they go on (oh do they ever) at great length to unpick in a lot of empirical detail some of the central metaphors of our "conceptual system". If you look at how we talk about, for instance, arguments:

"It is important to see that we don't just talk about arguments in terms of war. We can actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own. We gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies. If we find a position indefensible, we can abandon it and take a new line of attack. Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war. Though there is no physical battle, there is a verbal battle, and the structure of an argument--attack, defense, counter-attack, etc.---reflects this. It is in this sense that the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor is one that we live by in this culture; its structures the actions we perform in arguing.....

The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.. It is not that arguments are a subspecies of war. Arguments and wars are different kinds of things--verbal discourse and armed conflict--and the actions performed are different kinds of actions. But ARGUMENT is partially structured, understood, performed, and talked about in terms of WAR. The concept is metaphorically structured, the activity is metaphorically structured, and, consequently, the language is metaphorically structured."

and so on: Timne is Money; Lingustic expressions are Containers; simple spatial metaphors (up and down) structure much of how we think about happiness and wellness, sadness and illness, virtue and vice. Indeed the spatial and sensori-motor metaphors are our ur-metaphorical structures because:

"Our brains are structured so as to project activation patterns from sensorimotor areas to higher cortical areas. These constitute what we have called primary metaphors. Projection of this kind allow us to conceptualize abstract concepts on the basis of inferential patterns used in sensorimotor processes that are directly tied to the body."

so up and down, near and far, holding, containing, digesting etc: a surprising amount of our most abstract concepts are structured in terms of bodily processes and activites (think of how you are currently digesting these maybe unpalatable ideas).

Now I'm not saying I totally agree with these guys, but thinkers with much more time and money on their hands (see, _hands_) than Andy have spent years working on the premis that language is metaphor, and the work bears scrutiny, indeed its now one of the main stays of the new cognitive psychology. Really really boring writers though. Ironic that.

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

Heh. It kind of amuses me too.

But. I do think the metaphors we choose are powerful, and that some metaphors can even be dangerous if used carelessly (or even if used with precision). So calling attention to someone's use of metaphor is not just a trivial matter.

It's not just a matter of preferring one metaphor over another. It's about being aware of the nuances of the metaphors you choose to use, of the subtle messages you're sending to the people around you, and acknowledging that how you use your metaphors matters.

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

Also, this is why I shouldn't post why I'm tired and cranky. And it's also why I hate the internet, because when you snap at someone and then wish you hadn't it's still there and being linked to and argued with the next morning.

I shouldn't have tried to 'correct' you, and if it came across that way I'm sorry. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't necessary to use that metaphor to communicate what you wanted to communicate, and that it might be an unpleasant and problematic metaphor for some of the people you're trying to communicate with. But if you feel it's the best metaphor for what you want to say then of course you're entitled to use it. :)

[andrewducker]

I was trying, this morning, to think of a better one and maybe you can help me.

I feel there are two things going on.

One is the general lack of perfection in people - I'm not telepathic, I mishear things, I misunderstand concepts, etc. Nothing can really be done to fix these, they're just part of the human condition, and while you can work around them there's no "fix".

The other is when I have a panic attack over something trivial, or snap at my friends over nothing at all, or make demands that even I would know are unreasonable if I stop to think about them. I view these as a different class of imperfection - part of me has "gone wrong" and needs to be sorted out.

Can you see the difference, and if so can you suggest an alternative word/phrase?

I know mine was fairly blunt, but then I was trying to put something across without using complex language, and that frequently means being simplistic and hoping people won't take the phrasing as Truth, but rather as the nearest I could get in ordinary language.

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

I don't think there's quite as much of a difference as you think there is. The first category of things you describe are practical, physical or intellectual imperfections. The second are emotional imperfections. I'd call both of them 'imperfections' just the same.

There does feel like there's a difference between the two - maybe because we're inclined to feel that in some way we should have more control over the latter set than we sometimes do, or feel that we can learn to have more control. I do think they're things we have some control over and can learn to control, but maybe the same is true of the former (we can teach ourselves to concentrate better or pay more attention, to correct mishearings and misunderstandings, for example). So maybe it's not constructive to think of the two as being all that different. Which is, I think, kind of what you were saying.

I think, though, if you want to differentiate, I'd use 'limitations' for the former and 'imperfections' for the latter.

[andrewducker]

What I was (originally) basically trying to say was, indeed, "You are imperfect, so is everyone else, try to take that into account because your friends are doing the same for you."

I just get all flowery, like.

I like the limitations/imperfections phrasing too. I do think that there is a qualitative difference, but it's probably mostly down to "coping level" - it's an imperfection when you/your friends aren't able to cope with the problems the limitation causes.

I first started thinking about this many years ago, when a friend of mine went mad - trying to work out the difference between "sane" and "mad" was tricky when careful observation of the behaviours highlighted the fact that they were (some of) the same limitations that everyone has - just taken to extremes.

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

I think phrasing it as limitation/imperfection has some of the value connotations that feel appropriate for the distinction you're making. 'Limitation' is value neutral, it just is, it's a standard fact of human existence. 'Imperfection' does seem to carry a mild negative value, implying something's not quite as 'good' as it could be. I think it fits for what you're trying to get at without being as strong as the 'broken' phrasing.

I agree with the qualitative difference, but my analytical side wants to ask whether there's any actual substance to that that isn't just about the relative value we're encouraged to perceive in these things. Which, again, is part of what you're thinking about.

Not flowery, loquacious. ;)

[andrewducker]

my analytical side wants to ask whether there's any actual substance to that that isn't just about the relative value we're encouraged to perceive in these things. Which, again, is part of what you're thinking about.

I think I'd have to revert back to the "How much of a problem is it?" definition. _I_ think there's a qualitative difference between someone who worries "Am I sure I locked the door?" and the person who stands at it for half an hour locking and unlocking it repeatedly before they can leave the house. They're clearly the same behaviour taken to different extremes, but I've never been sure where the line lies between "Sane" and "Not".

[dalglir.livejournal.com]

OMG. Thats me. I'm totally uselessly paranoid about locks and will repeatedly (though not for half an hour) revisit, unlock and lock a door if necessary.

The biggest part of the problem is that I *forget* if I've locked the door within about 10-15 steps. So the 'fix' is to ritualise the act of locking the door or do it in a way that I can remember if I've locked it. Of course, this doesn't stop me from walking back, pretending I've forgotten something and starting all over again though...

I am such teh freak.

[andrewducker]

If this becomes an actual issue for you (i.e. gets to be something you find a real pain to deal with) then I suggest CBT - Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. It's supposed to be very good at dealing with things like this really quickly (i.e. in a couple of sessions).

a tangent

[diotina.livejournal.com]

one of my favorite words is baroque, which comes from the word barocco which means "an imperfect pearl", and carries with it connotations of whimsy, grotesqueness and oddity, but also of beauty--if applied to humans, a possibly more realistic extension of the "you are a unique and wonderful snowflake" sentiment. I think the use of the word "broken" (though I fully defend your right to use it) in this everything-needs-fixing society is percieved as a Bad Word, which is why people had problems with it.

[dalglir.livejournal.com]

I may have misunderstood your post and I disagreed with my understanding of what you had written.

The main thrust of your post seemed to be about your realisation that trying to change^H^H^H^H 'fix' yourself and those around you was futile and that any attempts to improve the lot of yourself or friends was more work than it was worth and stressed you out.

Its one thing to say "I'm still learning and changing" and quite another thing to say "I've stopped trying to fix myself" and "just day-to-day decisions to make and always work to do to keep me happy, cope with my friends and try not to piss them off too much." which suggests that you're happy with maintaining the status quo and just sort of letting experience wash over you, tweaking the neurons governing your behaviour. It suggests that you have no *self-motivated* desire for personal development any more.

I also thought that 'broken' and 'fixed' were bad metaphors for describing what amounted to differing behaviour. Can you give me some examples of 'broken' behaviours that you would personally have tried to fix in yourself those around you?

[andrewducker]

I don't have any motivation to turn me into "a better person". I do have motivation to make myself happier, and those around me likewise.

"Broken" behaviour:
Extreme outbursts of anger
Crying fits over tiny things
Panic attacks
Extreme shyness
Constant worries to neurotic/obsessive/compulsive levels.

[dalglir.livejournal.com]

"I do have motivation to make myself happier, and those around me likewise."

That didn't really come across in the original post but I guess thats not what it was really about, looking at the list of 'broken' behaviours now. Looks like I missed the point.

In my experience, its nigh impossible to change 'broken' behaviours in other people. I gave up. In others, I tend to either ignore the behaviour or, in extremes, disassociate myself from the people exhibiting it. Corny but true: that kind of change *has* to originate from within the person. Personally, I can be quite self conscious and I occasionally catch myself exhibiting 'broken' behaviours. I try to keep a subconscious mental leash them.

Bottom line is, folk should just chill the fuck out, get a grip, apologise if necessary and get on with shit. But thats probably oversimplifying things a bit. Bhuddism apparently has useful things to say about this kind of stuff but I haven't looked into it.

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

Bottom line is, folk should just chill the fuck out, get a grip, apologise if necessary and get on with shit.

Absolutely!

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

Hmm. In that case, there may have been some flavour of misunderstanding going on. I thought that the 'broken' behaviours you were referring to were: irritability, insensitivity, sniping, snapping, whinging, sulking, etc.

The behaviours on your list are a bit more extreme than I was thinking of, and they're not behaviours I normally have to deal with from most of my friends, (and I don't think they're behaviours my friends have to deal with from me, for the most part).

[andrewducker]

I think there's a continuum. When asked for examples I'd tried to fix I gave fairly extreme ones, because it's not occurred to me to try and fix less extreme things in people around me. Less extreme ones would still be problems rather than limitations if they were things that were a problem for your friends (or you) to deal with.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

seems they are all about fear at the root.

Fear of what? Is the feared result really all that bad?

yeah, chill out - since all is all about subjective perception, all cannot be other than well.

[in-thy-bounty.livejournal.com]

Those people were clearly broken ;)

I much enjoyed yesterday's post.