He says: “You’re right about this:

‘The problem with the incredible pervasiveness of metaphors in our worldview and in correspondence is that they are so common that we forget they are metaphors and operate as if they are the concepts they analogize…’

…because that’s exactly the problem with using the religious notion of ‘belief’ as a metaphor for subscription to scientific thought.�
He says, “It’s like using the phrase ‘War on Poverty’ for an national social program. It sounds strong and intuitively proper, but it’s only a metaphor, not the reality.�
And he wants to talk it over with you.
Email Allison at her web-site and ask her to forward the email to him.
Thanks.
He misses you, he says.

No, I’m bummed out in part by the Time and Space Vigilantes who are trying to impose their limitations on the rest of us (see the Alley and Nir Rosen for details).
And, more dispiriting than that—by far—is the Spiked Helmet-Worshiping conformity of Americans. (See: http://www.radioopensource.org/presidential-signing-statements/#comment-10809 & http://www.radioopensource.org/presidential-signing-statements/#comment-10810 .)

It’s not just that Americans are woefully ignorant about the pitiful deficiencies of our government-as-constituted and the comparative virtues of responsive parliamentary democracies abroad – it’s that we’re so friggin’ content in our woeful ignorance.
It’s very, very dispiriting.

Anyway, I’ve a response to you in my head (and partly written) but I need more time to listen to the Lisa Randall show again to find a quote I want to include in my response. I expect to do so overnight or over the weekend.
Thanks for your patience.

Jazzman to Potter: We are only bound by our beliefs and then only bound if we believe we are. (WG alert) WG = Word game

Jazzman to Potter: I define instinct as an innate drive that exists in non-human entities and implies lack of free will. We have free will and can make conscious choices to go for or against reactive or emotional (often miscalled instinctive) behavior. Potter replies:Isn’t “free will� specific to human consciousness …Art or ART is special. There is another component, let’s say “spiritual�. Yes free will takes the place of instinct in humans. The other component IS spiritual – your spirit creates it.

Potter: If people have free will, then some animals may (we are on a continuum with animals from the beginnings of life.) I doubt that animals are able to override their instinct by conscious choice. As to the continuum you know where I stand on that.

Potter: Some people dress artfully/or artistically. Jazzman:. According to themselves and those who agree. Potter: But that is not what I think you mean. I think you mean that our whole being is art, our perceptions are art. Jazzman:. No – I mean one’s physical body as grown by one is ART – one’s shape, moles, bunions, creases, pocks, personality etc. not to mention tattoos and piercings if applicable. Potter: That stretches the definition to the point where it has no specific meaning. . Jazzman:. Work –Well Done Potter: Expression alone is not art. Reaction/response alone is not art. George Ballanchine’s ballets and Suzanne Farrell’s performances are ART though, no question about it. If expression is well expressed and I react to it and respond in a manner that is ART to me then it’s ART. Balanchine’s and Farrell’s work constitutes are for you no question, others may disagree, and that is the point. YOU create what you deem ART.

Potter: It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s ART or it is not whether others agree or disagree. If I don’t like a Jackson Pollack painting, it’s still ART. Jazzman Au contraire. There’s no Platonic ideal model for ART.
This is a misinterpretation of Plato and/or what I said. From your wikipedia link: Begin Quote

Platonic idealism is the theory that the substantive reality around us is only a reflection of a higher truth. That truth, Plato argues, is the abstraction. He believed that ideas were more real than things. He developed a vision of two worlds: a world of unchanging ideas and a world of changing physical objects. A particular tree, with a branch or two missing, possibly alive, possibly dead, and initials of two lovers carved into its bark, is distinct from the form of Tree-ness. A Tree is the ideal that each of us holds that allows us to identify the imperfect reflections of trees all around us.
End Quote

In other words there is no higher truth or ideal that is ART. No ideal that is the ABSOLUTE standard for art to compare lesser art forms to its ART-ness

Potter: ART is real, not ideal. Your argument is about it’s designation as such without your approval. That is not a Platonic argument near as I can tell. I am not saying that ART exists independent of particulars. Particulars are in fact essential to art/ART. ART is real in your mind and other’s minds only. I’m saying it’s not a Platonic argument. You seem to believe ART exists as a concept independent of our minds eye which would make it a Platonic form. I’m not saying ART exists independent of particulars either. I’m saying you decide what constitutes those particulars. This is what I mean when I say you don’t want to take responsibility for your creations, co or individual.

Potter on Christo: It is obviously conceptual. Art is about Art as well. It may mean something to other artists, in terms of freeing them up, making them see things or in a way they had not before. In that sense, even as you indicate when you say “framing nature�, it has a value. Velasquez ( and certain other painters, Delacroix) for instance was called a “painter’s painter�. They inspire other artists. This is by no means a rubbery definition. The inspiration part is still there, the aesthetic part is still there: form and expression. This work also has the potential to be transcendent. It’s the artist’s and the viewer’s concept. Conceptual art allows, not makes, artists to see things differently. The value of framing nature is decided again by the observer. Obviously Christo believes it has value (people pay him) but inspiration, esthetics, and transcendence are provided by the beholders who transmute the potential from latency to actuality for themselves.

Potter on fakes: And if you focus, you too will see the difference between the expression of the master and his copier for no one can be Rembrandt. I doubt if I could tell the difference on most good imitations, the major difference is their respective values. The intrinsic values of each are close to equal but the piece with the cachet of expert provenance is worth whatever the market will bear, ultimately decided by the purchaser.

Jazzman to Potter: ART without subjectivity is a neutral action/event/object – and has no meaning. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no observer – there is no tree and no forest. Not philosophy, quantum mechanics! Potter replies: That’s a contradictory statement! Neutral is one thing (a value, or non-value), non-existent is another. ART sans subjectivity is neutral. Art without an observer is non-existent.

Potter: So every work of art/ART that you have not yet experienced does not exist?? Yes – art/ART not experienced by you doesn’t exist in your experience except as an abstract concept (the set of all art/ART that could be experienced by you)

Potter: Not to take away from that essential point but are you telling me that the trees that fell behind my house this winter did not fall? That all the trees in the deep forests of the world did not fall because no one saw them? What about all the CO2 they are releasing from their decay? Are you telling me there are no forests, no trees? (???#%*!!!) You are one of the many observers. Your house’s back behind is as you observe it.

Potter: I think this gets to the bottom of our discussion. We disagree on language and you are talking in philosophical terms. You have an underlying philosophy which challenges all points made that are not within it. That is true of ALL belief systems. I am talking about the world as I believe it manifests (that all experience and existence is a function of observation.) This bandwagon has many riders, although it may not be correct but this is the current position of leading edge physics. Each of us has a philosophy (belief system) that challenges points that are not within it, that is what you are doing when you challenge any positions in the ROS blogs or anywhere else. That is how we alter and enlarge our worldviews.

Potter: You are putting on me your position. The ART is there. I can engage/experience it, fully or partially, or not. ART exists, the expression that is ART exists outside of me. Within the ART “category� there is quite a variety of potential experience. Everything that is ART is not necessarily recognized by consensus ( yet). I asked for your definition of ART. The Object/Action/Event is there – you make it ART – consensus notwithstanding. Your experience is the decider. ART exists because you have parameters that define ART. The expression (work) exists outside of you but the ART is inside. On one hand you say ART is not necessarily recognized by consensus and the other that consensus makes it ART.

You say Miller’s work doesn’t move you, and it’s possibly not ART – I, on the other hand, was moved enough to purchase several of her works (they aren’t inexpensive) which generally elicit positive comments (most commonly regarding the intense visceral reaction they experience) when viewed by friends. My son said he was creeped out by one of her clay faces and doesn’t like her creations.

Potter: things of natural beauty are different from things created by human consciousness….Someone has to create from their senses/impulses/cognition what goes into your sense organs/ cognition/responses. This comes through a universal language that transcends time and physical boundaries. Art is in that realm. It draws on that universal power that connects us. But it comes through a human consciousness to another. By the way you have switched from advocating “co-creation� to “individual creation� which does not even need an artist on the other end. This is truly/totally “conceptual� (and a dead end in the art conversation imo). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (you) – you decide what goes into your senses by your focus. Someone may have created the scene but you pick and choose. What is this universal language and power that connects us and operates in other dimensions? The realm is in your mind. It comes through a human consciousness to another alright but it flows from your consciousness to the other not the other way around.

If you reread my thesis regarding “individual creation� vs. “co-creation�, you’ll see I was stating that in terms of Nature’s art, you are the individual creator the only artist in that scenario is you (unless you anthropomorphize Nature or subscribe to God the artist.)

Potter: I’m all I define the WORK part as creative intention by the artist The creative intent part is to subsume “conceptual� art like Christo and ART created by the “Name and a Frame� people as I define ALL creative work by humans art and reserve the WELL DONE part for the value judgment of others.

Potter goes: The WELL DONE part regarding art is according to some consensus or standard. As I repeatedly state, consensus is a bandwagon fallacy and the standard is in your mind.

Potter’s like: We carry a morality that has been transmitted to us. I’m like: We carry a morality (beliefs) that we select from ALL possible morals by either accepting transmitted values (inculcated by authorities) or by conscious choice. Potter’s all if it is not ART, it’s only your opinion that it is. I’m like: It’s your opinion that it isn’t. It’s our opinions that create ART for each of us.

I’m all: The artist creates the “work� and each of us including the artist creates our personal experience. The “work� is neutral. Potter goes: So why go to a museum, a play, a concert. Save money, stay home and create your own experience! I’m like because if I stay home the work is neutral. When I create my own experience it’s not neutral it’s ART (if I think it is.) BTW I’m not into saving money I spend it as fast as I get it – it’s worth less every day and spending keeps the economy moving.

Potter’s all: I refer to “work� that has meaning, is aesthetically extraordinary and/or moves or has potential to move us, awaken us, our senses. I’m like: Meanings are construed by individuals, esthetics are in each persons mind, and everything has the potential to move us. We decide whether or not we are moved.

Potter goes: ART embodies universals, is an expression of timeless essentials, is inspired and has potential be inspire us more deeply. I’m like: What are universals? What are timeless essentials? Who’s the decider? Inspiration takes the form of intent and everything has the potential to inspire us. Again, the deeply part is our decision.

Potter’s like: There is a lag time between the creation and the acceptance of most (especially modern) ART….This requires a change in attitude of the beholder. I go: Snap. You recognize that the beholder’s (your) attitude is responsible for the ART – the thesis of most of this exchange.
I’m like: Because the majority believes something to be true does not make it true. Potter’s all: The majority in this case are those people who devote their lives to understanding, experiencing/focusing on these expressions.…You sweep it all away, as with (parts of) “Darwinian Evolution� and for the same broad brush unsubstantiated reasons about consensus. I’m like: If people devote their lives to understanding, and focusing on a field, that doesn’t guarantee they understand or have the TRUTH regarding that field. What I sweep away is the assertion that because a majority of people believes anything, that makes it a fact. That is the Bandwagon fallacy period. The majority may be in agreement but wrong, or they may be right. The majority of the pre-Copernican thinkers believed the Earth was the center of the solar system. The majority of the inhabitants of Olde Salem MA believed that some people were witches. The majority of people in the nineteenth century were against woman sufferage. The majority of people in the U.S. (and in the world) believe in God and capital punishment. The majority of voters voted for GWB. Consensus!!!

So jazzman, I have to tell you I was excited to read your 7:20 PM, and typed out my 7:30 PM in reply. By the time I finished and submitted, you’d added your 7:22 PM, 7:23 PM, and 7:25 PM, making my 7:30 PM out-of-date – even though it was brand new.

Then I read your 7:22 PM, and my heart sank.
The reason I thought it possible that you’ve been ‘jacking me around’ is that it’s so obvious to me that all ‘knowledge’, or, more precisely – provisional ‘knowledge’ – isn’t ‘beliefs’ makes your insistence on conflating it seem at least eccentric, if not…

…to be continued!

What is a “WG� alert? I missed that.

Isn’t “free will� specific to human consciousness (or perhaps higher animals) just as art as opposed to trees or rocks? Regarding the “purpose of art�, an artist does not sit down (or stand up) and say “Now I am going to create art/ART!� That might be true for your “work well done� definition, not mine. Art or ART is special. There is another component, let’s say “spiritual�.

Perhaps you are talking about “art for art’s sake alone when you exclude animals. I question that and I question your declaration that animals have no free will. If people have free will, then some animals may (we are on a continuum with animals from the beginnings of life.) But I do not want to sidetrack the discussion into animal art, as I have said (even though I am engaging in it).

Jazzman:You say we are animals, I say we are classified thusly by biology but we are more, we are special, we are ART. Our physical bodies are one of our most personal expressions of ART. In that we create the experience of ART we are also artists

Some people dress artfully/or artistically. Some are even artists in the way they dress. Do they create ART out of themselves? It’s a concept to consider. But that is not what I think you mean. I think you mean that our whole being is art, our perceptions are art. That stretches the definition to the point where it has no specific meaning. Expression alone is not art. Reaction/response alone is not art. George Ballanchine’s ballets and Suzanne Farrell’s performances are ART though, no question about it.

Potter: It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s ART or it is not whether others agree or disagree. If I don’t like a Jackson Pollack painting, it’s still ART. Jazzman Au contraire. There’s no Platonic ideal model for ART.

This is a misinterpretation of Plato and/or what I said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_ideal

ART is real, not ideal. Your argument is about it’s designation as such without your approval. That is not a Platonic argument near as I can tell. I am not saying that ART exists independent of particulars. Particulars are in fact essential to art/ART.

I do not say it is Art or is not ART. It is obviously controversial, like some music. This is an example of lag time. It may be that it never quite gets accepted by the general public. This does not mean it is or is not ART. It is obviously conceptual. Art is about Art as well. It may mean something to other artists, in terms of freeing them up, making them see things or in a way they had not before. In that sense, even as you indicate when you say “framing nature�, it has a value. Velasquez ( and certain other painters, Delacroix) for instance was called a “painter’s painter�. They inspire other artists. This is by no means a rubbery definition. The inspiration part is still there, the aesthetic part is still there: form and expression. This work also has the potential to be transcendent.

Potter: A Shakespeare play is ART whether you feel it or not. A Puccini opera is ART whether it moves you or not. A Tang Dynasty horse is ART whether you appreciate it or not. Jazzman Etc Again – who says so? How about those master fake Tang Artifacts – they often fool experts. Art or artifice?

That’s how experts get good. They are finding phony Rembrandts now after all these years. So what? A good fake is a good fake. It takes off on it’s prototype. With a real Rembrandt, who would or could fake one? And if you focus, you too will see the difference between the expression of the master and his copier for no one can be Rembrandt.

Potter: Your experience is subjective. ART is not only subjective. Jazzman: ART without subjectivity is a neutral action/event/object – and has no meaning. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no observer – there is no tree and no forest. Not philosophy, quantum mechanics!

That’s a contradictory statement! Neutral is one thing (a value, or non-value), non-existent is another.

So every work of art/ART that you have not yet experienced does not exist??

Not to take away from that essential point but are you telling me that the trees that fell behind my house this winter did not fall? That all the trees in the deep forests of the world did not fall because no one saw them? What about all the CO2 they are releasing from their decay? Are you telling me there are no forests, no trees? (???#%*!!!)

Potter: *Everyone then “creates” a different tree by dint of the fact that everyone’s perception is different. That’s not the meaning of “create” I at least am using. Jazzman: Yes that’s exactly my meaning of create. There are as many different trees as there are observers including the tree’s own self.

I think this gets to the bottom of our discussion. We disagree on language and you are talking in philosophical terms. You have an underlying philosophy which challenges all points made that are not within it.

Potter: How about EXCEEDINGLY well done? (I’ll consider it.) A Faberge egg or the Book of Kells is “exceedingly well done”. Is a Mark Rothko painting? I would say no. They are [all] ART. Your definition is not good enough I say. Jazzman: So what is your definition? You say some art poorly done is ART and some well done art isn’t. It’s you who decides, as Allison says, no one else can define ART for you – including me.

You are putting on me your position. The ART is there. I can engage/experience it, fully or partially, or not. ART exists, the expression that is ART exists outside of me. Within the ART “category� there is quite a variety of potential experience. Everything that is ART is not necessarily recognized by consensus ( yet). In other words the tree fell but we have not noticed it yet. You can notice it. You can call it a tree But if it’s not a tree, it’s not a TREE. It may very well be a tree. It has to meet the definition of TREE (a consensus).

By the way Miller’s work looks like it is well done but it did not move me. It might if I saw it in person. But it might not even then.

Potter: I am not co-creating in any case. I am receiving a communication on a deeper level. JazzmanAgain while they are generally considered things of natural beauty, sunsets, flowers, the Grand Canyon, and trees are not art. Who communicates on that deeper level? Your eyes receive emitted photons and translate them into mental images, and your ears translate the motion of air molecules into sound. The communication is a creation of your brain, and can range from gibberish to profundity depending on your attitude and perception. You are indeed not a co-creator you are an individual creator.

Oy Gevalt! Well I have taken birdsong out of our discussion because it confuses things, but things of natural beauty are different from things created by human consciousness. It’s essential to differentiate human (I would include some animal but not in this discussion) consciousness from all else. Someone has to create from their senses/impulses/cognition what goes into your sense organs/ cognition/responses. This comes through a universal language that transcends time and physical boundaries. Art is in that realm. It draws on that universal power that connects us. But it comes through a human consciousness to another.

By the way you have not switched from advocating “co-creation� to “individual creation� which does not even need an artist on the other end. This is truly/totally “conceptual� (and a dead end in the art conversation imo).

Jazzman Says on
April 12th, 2006 at 6:35 pm I define the WORK part as creative intention by the artist and the WELL DONE part as a value judgment by of whomever experiences the creative intent.

This is the first time you define “work” ie as “creative intention by the artist”. This is a special definition of work because work means the expenditure of physical and/or mental energy and is associated with a task, duty, assignment. ( the creative meaning is #7b of 11 meanings in Webster) STILL I find this use inadequate for ART. The WELL DONE part regarding art is according to some consensus or standard. There should be no doubt or question about whether something is well done or not. Still this does not make it ART.

Allison asks: Can’t we all just experience each others’ expressions without this need for judgement?

Jazzman answers: IMO everything that doesn’t contravene my definition of Absolute Morality is inherently neutral and just as we create the artistic experience it is we who judge for ourselves the value of actions, items and events

We carry a morality that has been transmitted to us. There is a limit, a severe one, on your own “virgin� judgments about morality, if there is such a thing. We don’t live in a vacuum; we did not spring out of the blue. So too you are welcome to say something is art, but if it is not ART, it’s only your opinion that it is. (You can live in your own world. We all do to an extent.)

Jazzman to Allison: I was only trying to suggest to Potter that it is she who creates the experience. The artist creates the “work” and each of us including the artist creates our personal experience. The “work” is neutral.

So why go to a museum, a play, a concert. Save money, stay home and create your own experience!

April 12th, 2006 at 6:46 pm

Jazzman to Potter: All poetry is not ART. All poetry is not POETRY. All prose is not ART. All painting is not ART. All pots are not ART. Etc.Who decides what of these art forms rises to their CAPITALIZED forms? You say the consensus’ imprimatur – Van Gogh was disdained and considered a hack artist by the consensus of his peers in his day. The impressionists (my favorite painters – Cezanne in particular) were also initially rejected.

I capitalize ART in this discussion to separate it from it’s other many meanings. I refer to “work� that has meaning, is aesthetically extraordinary and/or moves or has potential to move us, awaken us, our senses. ART embodies universals, is an expression of timeless essentials, is inspired and has potential be inspire us more deeply. This is through the power of form and expression of the artist him/herself. There is a lag time between the creation and the acceptance of most (especially modern) ART The lag time as far as appreciation/experience of modern/post modern art goes is due to the profound change in art due to a new sense of freedom. This requires a change in attitude of the beholder. (For further on this Meyer Schapiro’s essay on “Abstract Art� is very good.)

Potter says: This not bandwagon. It is consensus however… That’s what gives them the authority. Jazzman says: The fallacies of bandwagon, consensus, and authority are all names for the same phenomenon. Because the majority believes something to be true does not make it true.

The majority in this case are those people who devote their lives to understanding, experiencing/focusing on these expressions. That is not to say that there are no “fallacies� (eventually corrected) or that there is no “bandwagon effect� (eventually sorted out). You sweep it all away, as with (parts of) “Darwinian Evolution� and for the same broad brush unsubstantiated reasons about consensus.

Let’s talk!

You go first — I’ve left you plenty to respond to lately.
And thanks!

Argument is War (or is a surrogate for war as sports and competition are) the belief in the analogy as reality causes problems, hurt feelings, and in many cases death. It would behoove us to recognize the inherent dangers of belief in violent metaphor as reality. I try and believe I mostly succeed in operating using the Argument is Dance metaphor as a guiding principle, anyway that is my intent. If I’m aggressive, vehement and insistent about a point it may seem more like break dancing than waltzing but I always attempt to argue academically and not personally.

I also try to use commonly understood terminology instead of jargon so that I or my correspondents avoid the fallacy of imbuing metaphoric constructs with the connotative baggage that these metaphors carry (like I use beliefs instead of memes unless I intend the memetic baggage to accompany the concept I’m elucidating.

Here’s one for Potter: A metaphor is an iceberg, the tip is the seemingly innocuous analogy but the danger is hidden underneath the surface of the concept. (BTW This will make #397 and unless you want your poem to stand in proxy for #400 so that an hwally doesn’t usurp your rightful due, post soon.)

Peace to ALL – Jazzman

Proposition:

Givens:

1) The universe is as we experience it today.
2) Everything is fair and equitable – No one has advantage over anyone else by birth or circumstance.

Question: What is condition or law is required to support the proposition?

My definition of the term beliefs subsumes all the contents of our minds (cognitions) that are held to be true. This is true of your “Mental acceptance dependent on empirically supported tenets�, as well as mental acceptance of faith-like ‘belief’ in unverifiable tenets.� I can agree on the most basic level that each belief is different and distinctive. So empirically supported tenets and tautological beliefs (beliefs which are true by definition) are different from faith based beliefs. I use belief in the Meta sense (interesting that you are currently pursuing METAphors – I will address metaphors later) and the salient point of the meta (overarching) sense is the assumption of truth about what is believed, it doesn’t matter whether it’s verifiable or not, we operate as if they are TRUE. The berries example will suffice as an illustration. If I believe that blueberries are the same as other berries that are blue irrespective of the shade, (blueberries are good, these are blue berries, therefore good – no matter that eating blueberries will benefit me for the antioxidants and the others may make me sick or die) then the belief that all blue berries are equivalent is operationally true for me and I won’t hesitate to eat non-blueberry blue berries (as long as they’re tasty.) My belief may be so strong that if I get sick by eating poisonous tasty blue berries that I will not ascribe the symptoms to the ingestion of the berries and attribute it to the flu or other agency. This would be due to the fact belief in the empirically true fact that blueberries are good (because I ate them and they were tasty) and the belief that the other blue berries were good (because I ate them and they were tasty), I just happened to be coming down with the flu. The beliefs for me are operationally the same. People think that their beliefs are true (that’s why they are beliefs) so ALL beliefs verifiable or otherwise (just because something is not readily verifiable (verify means: to make true) doesn’t mean it is false) are operationally (believed to be true) the same. If you want to restrict your definition of s-beliefs to empirically supported tenets then that is a miniscule subset of total beliefs and as I state below, empiricism vis-a-vis oneself is largely faith based.

The belief that subscription beliefs are provisional and that is what constitutes the difference from other beliefs is erroneous. (By subscription, I presume you mean beliefs that are presumed to be true because some authorities said that they were true. This has to be based on faith in the authorities and their methods as you can’t empirically verify most scientific assertions yourself. Jonathon Marks adduces many examples of misplaced faith in authorities and the dubiousness of their methodology.) ALL beliefs are provisional; that is how we decide what we believe, when a belief is no longer useful or no longer believed it is replaced.

When I use the word belief hereafter, I mean a mental concept held to be true. I do try to use commonly understood words with unambiguous definitions and try to avoid semantic nuances (unless I’m being punny or humorous.) I don’t see these distinctions as a mobius strip (as it is topologically one sided and not metaphorically one-sided.) I’m attempting to capture the essence or meta meaning of the concept we’re discussing, details that are subsumed by a larger concept are usually beside the point. (Like Marks’ “How do Humans, Chimps and Mammals differ?�) It seems to me that you are still irate at me for contradicting your “Have I ever?� protestations. That was a condemnation of the “our (perceived good) ends justify any expeditious (even violent) means� philosophy. I warned the members of ROS that I would and will decry this philosophy when espoused by anyone. I again apologize if that appeared personal. I value the breadth of your opinion and hope to continue to exchange ideas with you and everyone else.

Here are more metaphors Lakoff and Johnson examine (In chapter 3):

IDEAS (OR MEANINGS) ARE OBJECTS
LINGUISTIC EXPRESSIONS ARE CONTAINERS
COMMUNICATION IS SENDING

(In chapter 4) Orientational Metaphors:
HAPPY IS UP; SAD IS DOWN
CONSCIOUS IS UP; UNCONSCIOUS IS DOWN
HEALTH AND LIFE ARE UP; SICKNESS AND DEATH ARE DOWN
HAVING CONTROL OR FORCE ARE UP; BEING SUBJECT TO CONTROL IS DOWN
MORE IS UP; LESS IS DOWN
FORESEEABLE FUTURE EVENTS ARE UP (and AHEAD)
HIGH STATUS IS UP; LOW STATUS IS DOWN
GOOD IS UP; BAD IS DOWN
VIRTUE IS UP; DEPRAVITY IS DOWN
RATIONAL IS UP; EMOTIONAL IS DOWN

That’s not all: that’s only chapters 3 & 4 — of 30! And it’s easy reading, if not exciting.
I’d love to discuss it with anyone who gets to it. It will make all our discussions here on ROS much more fruitful—and you can take that ‘to the bank’.

“Thank you for your time!�

2 – The Systematicity of Metaphorical Concepts

Arguments usually follow patterns; that is, there are certain things we typically do and not do in arguing. The fact that we in part conceptualize arguments in terms of battle systematically influences the shape arguments take and the way we talk about what we do in arguing. Because the metaphorical concept is systematic, the language we use to talk about that aspect of the concept is systematic.

We saw in the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor that expressions from the vocabulary of war, e.g., attack a position, indefensible, strategy, new line of attack, win, gain, ground, etc., form a systematic way of talking about the battling aspects of arguing. It is no accident that these expressions mean what they mean when we use them to talk about arguments. A portion of the conceptual network of battle partially characterizes the concept of an argument, and the language follows suit. Since metaphorical expressions in our language are tied to metaphoric concepts a systematic way, we can use the metaphorical linguistic expressions to study the nature of metaphorical concepts and to gain an understanding of the metaphorical nature of our activities.

To get an idea of how metaphorical expressions in everyday language can give us insight into the metaphorical nature of the concepts that structure our everyday activities, let us consider the metaphorical concept TIME IS MONEY as it is reflected in everyday English.

TIME IS MONEY
– You’re wasting my time.
– This gadget will save you hours.
– I don’t have the time to give to you.
– How do you spend your time these days?
– That flat tire cost me an hour.
– I’ve invested a lot of time in her.
– I don’t have enough time to spare for that.
– You’re running out of time.
– You need to budget your time.
– Put aside some time for ping pong.
– Is that worth your while?
– Do you have much time left?
– He’s living on borrowed time.
– You don’t use your time profitably.
– I lost a lot of time when I got sick.
– Thank you for your time.

Time in our culture is a valuable commodity. It is a limited resource that we use to accomplish our goals. Because of the way that the concept of work has developed in modern Western culture, where work is typically associated with the time it takes and time is precisely quantified, it has become customary to pay people by the hour, week, or year. In our culture TIME IS MONEY in many ways: telephone message units, hourly wages, hotel room rates, yearly budgets, interest on loans, and paying your debt to society by “serving time�. These practices are relatively new in the history of the human race, and by no means do they exist in all cultures. They have arisen in modern industrialized societies and structure our basic everyday activities in a very profound way. Corresponding to the fact that we act as if time is a valuable commodity—a limited resource, even money—we conceive of time that way. Thus we understand and experience time as the kind of thing that can be spent, wasted, budgeted, invested wisely or poorly, saved, or squandered.

TIME IS MONEY, TIME IS A LIMITED RESOURCE, and TIME IS A VALUABLE COMMODITY are all metaphorical concepts. They are metaphorical since we are using our everyday experiences with money, limited resources, and valuable commodities to conceptualize time. This isn’t a necessary way for humans to conceptualize time; it is tied to our culture. There are cultures where time is none of these things.

The metaphorical concepts TIME IS MONEY, TIME IS A LIMITED RESOURCE, and TIME IS A VALUABLE COMMODITY form a single system based on subcategorization, since in our society money is a limited resource and limited resources are valuable commodities. These subcategorization relationships characterize entailment relationships between the metaphors. TIME IS MONEY entails that TIME IS A LIMITED RESOURCE, which entails that TIME IS A VALUABLE COMMODITY.

We are adopting the practice of using the most specific metaphorical, in this case TIME IS MONEY, to characterize the entire system. Of the expressions listed under the TIME IS MONEY metaphor, some refer specifically to money (spend, invest, budget, profitably, cost), others to limited resources (use, use up, have enough of, run out of), and still others to valuable commodities (have, give, lose, thank you for). This is an example of the way in which metaphorical entailments can characterize a coherent system of metaphorical concepts and a corresponding coherent system of metaphorical expressions for those concepts.

That’s the whole of chapter 2. http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-0226468011-1
See next post for follow-up.

Rock and Hawkby Robinson Jeffers

Here is a symbol in which

Many high tragic thoughts

Watch their own eyes.

This gray rock, standing tall

On the headland, where the seawind

Lets no tree grow,

Earthquake-proved, and signatured

By ages of storms: on its peak

A falcon has perched.

I think, here is your emblem

To hang in the future sky;

Not the cross, not the hive,

But this; bright power, dark peace;

Fierce consciousness joined with final

Disinterestedness;

Life with calm death; the falcon’s

Realist eyes and act

Married to the massive

Mysticism of stone,

Which failure cannot cast down

Nor success make proud.

I mentioned this already in the Racism thread, but it began here in this belated ‘follow-up’, and it bears repeating:
It occurs to me through my ongoing thought-fog that the reason “…mental acceptance of the probability that empirically validated premises are true and not illusory; mental acceptance dependent on empirically supported tenets, as distinguished from faith-like ‘belief’ in unverifiable tenets…� is stuck sharing the word belief is that scientific empirical study is relatively new. The Western world was once home to fraternities of monks who ‘studied’ the ‘reality’ of ‘God’. They have been replaced (thankfully) by fraternities of scientists who study the apparent realities of existence (and I’m with them, not the monks, who were naively projecting their wishful-thinking into putatively ‘scholarly’ texts and theology).
Yet this shift is, in the glacial scale of cultural change, so new that we’re still using the religious-milieu’s word and meanings of ‘belief’ in lieu of an appropriate word to signify a still nebulous concept like the ‘mental acceptance’ stuff in the paragraph above this one. Scientists are diligent observers, but not, it seems, particularly creative thinkers.
As I understand this better and better and day by passing day, I lose my ire and want instead to further my growing understanding – and to share it.
Here’s one way to share (all bolded words are my blogitorial emphases):

Metaphors We Live By — George Lakoff and Mark Johnson; Chapter 1: Concepts We Live By:

(begin quote) Metaphor is for most people a 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 in 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.

The concepts that govern our thought are not just maters of the intellect. They also govern our everyday functioning, down to the most mundane details. Our concepts structure what we perceive, how we get around in the world, and how we relate to other people. Our conceptual system thus play a central role in defining our everyday realities. If we are right in suggesting that that our conceptual system is largely metaphorical, then the way we think, what we experience, and what we do every day is very much a matter of metaphor.

But our conceptual system is not something we are normally aware of. In most of the little things we do every day, we simply think and act more or less automatically along certain lines. Just what these lines are is by no means obvious. One way to find out is by looking at language. Since communication is based on the same conceptual system that we use in thinking and acting, language is an important source of evidence for what that system is like.

Primarily on the basis of linguistic evidence, we have found that most of our ordinary conceptual system is metaphorical in nature. And we have found a way to begin to identify in detail just what the metaphors are that structure how we perceive, how we think, and what we do. To give some idea of what it could mean for a concept to be metaphorical and for such a concept to structure an everyday activity, let us start with concept ARGUMENT and the conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR. This metaphor is reflected in our everyday language by a wide variety of expressions:

ARGUMENT IS WAR
n Your claims are indefensible.
n He attacked every weak point in my argument.
n His criticisms were right on target.
n I demolished his argument.
n I’ve never won an argument with him.
n You disagree? Okay, shoot!
n If you use that strategy, he’ll wipe you out.
n He shot down all my arguments.

It is important to see that we don’t just talk about arguments in terms of war. We can actually win and lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our won. 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, counterattack, etc.—reflects this. It is in this sense that the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor is one that we live by in this culture; it structures the actions we perform in arguing.

Try to imagine a culture where arguments are not viewed in terms of war, where no one wins or loses, where there is no sense of attacking or defending, gaining or losing ground. Imagine a culture where an argument is viewed as a dance, the participants are seen as performers, and the goal is to perform in a balanced and aesthetically pleasing way. In such a culture, people would view arguments differently, carry them our differently, and talk about them differently. But we would probably not view them as arguing at all: they would simply be doing something different. It would seem strange to even call what they were doing “arguing�. Perhaps the most neutral way of describing this difference between their culture and ours would be to say that we have a discourse form structured in terms of battle and they have one structured in terms of dance.

This is what it means for a metaphorical concept, namely, ARGUMENT IS WAR, to structure (at least in part) what we do and how we understand what we are doing when we argue. The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind 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.

Moreover, this is the ordinary way of having an argument and talking about it. The normal way for us to talk about attacking a position is to use the words “attacking a position�. Our conventional ways of talking about arguments presuppose a metaphor we are hardly ever conscious of. The metaphor is not merely in the words we use—it is in our very concept of an argument. The language of argument is not poetic, fanciful, or rhetorical; it is literal. We talk about arguments that way because we conceive of them that way—and we act according to the way we conceive of things.

The most important claim we have made so far is that metaphor is not just a matter of language, that is, of mere words, we shall argue that, on the contrary, human thought processes are largely metaphorical. This is what we mean when we say that the human conceptual system is metaphorically structured and defined. Metaphors as linguistic expressions are possible precisely because there are metaphors in a person’s conceptual system. Therefore, whenever in this book we speak of metaphors, such as ARGUMENT IS WAR, it should be understood that metaphor means metaphorical concept.
(end quote)

That’s the whole of chapter 1 http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-0226468011-1 .
It’s ‘pregnant’ (another metaphor) with implications.
Our language is ‘built (another metaphor) on’ metaphor, in thousands and thousands of ways. Yet if our language’s metaphors don’t accurately enough represent (by comparison) the realities we intend to comprehend by using them, the realities seem unreal. (This is the crippling problem with the ‘mechanistic universe’ metaphor I excoriate at length in http://www.radioopensource.org/is-god-in-our-genes/#comment-8013 .)

As things stand now (another metaphor), our language has no commonly understood conceptual distinction between ‘mental acceptance of empirically validated tenets’ and ‘mental acceptance of religiously validated tenets’. This lack leads us to conflate the two types of ‘mental acceptances’. This conflation leads in turn to actions to deny the claim of conflation. And these actions take place within the domain of the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor.

Now, for an alternative, have a look at this: http://www.radioopensource.org/garry-wills-on-jesus/#comment-9631 —which just might be an example of the tenuous ARGUMENT IS DANCE metaphor Lakoff and Johnson give above.

I’d like to pursue this more, and soon too, with another follow-up, but for right now I gotta run.

Metaphors We Live By — George Lakoff and Mark Johnson; Chapter 1: Concepts We Live By:
(begin quote) Metaphor is for most people a 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 an 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.

ARGUMENT IS WAR
– Your claims are indefensible.
– He attacked every weak point in my argument.
– His criticisms were right on target.
– I demolished his argument.
– I’ve never won an argument with him.
– You disagree? Okay, shoot!
– If you use that strategy, he’ll wipe you out.
– He shot down all my arguments.

It is important to see that we don’t just talk about arguments in terms of war. We can actually win and lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our won. 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, counterattack, etc.—reflects this. It is in this sense that the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor is one that we live by in this culture; it structures the actions we perform in arguing.

Try to imagine a culture where arguments are not viewed in terms of war, where no one wins or loses, where there is no sense of attacking or defending, gaining or losing ground. Imagine a culture where an argument is viewed as a dance, the participants are seen as performers, and the goal is to perform in a balanced and aesthetically pleasing way. In such a culture, people would view arguments differently, carry them our differently, and talk about them differently. But we would probably not view them as arguing at all: they would simply be doing something different. It would seem strange to even call what they were doing “arguing�. Perhaps the most neutral way of describing this difference between their culture and ours would be to say that we have a discourse form structured in terms of battle and they have one structured in terms of dance.

This is what it means for a metaphorical concept, namely, ARGUMENT IS WAR, to structure (at least in part) what we do and how we understand what we are doing when we argue. The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind 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.

Moreover, this is the ordinary way of having an argument and talking about it. The normal way for us to talk about attacking a position is to use the words “attacking a position�. Our conventional ways of talking about arguments presuppose a metaphor we are hardly ever conscious of. The metaphor is not merely in the words we use—it is in our very concept of an argument. The language of argument is not poetic, fanciful, or rhetorical; it is literal. We talk about arguments that way because we conceive of them that way—and we act according to the way we conceive of things.

The most important claim we have made so far is that metaphor is not just a matter of language, that is, of mere words, we shall argue that, on the contrary, human thought processes are largely metaphorical. This is what we mean when we say that the human conceptual system is metaphorically structured and defined. Metaphors as linguistic expressions are possible precisely because there are metaphors in a person’s conceptual system. Therefore, whenever in this book we speak of metaphors, such as ARGUMENT IS WAR, it should be understood that metaphor means metaphorical concept.
(end quote)

That’s the whole of chapter 1 http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-0226468011-1 .
It’s ‘pregnant’ (another metaphor) with implications.
Our language is ‘built on (another metaphor)’ metaphor, in thousands and thousands of ways. Yet if our language’s metaphors don’t accurately enough represent (by comparison) the realities we intend to comprehend by using them, the realities seem unreal. (This is the crippling, self-defeating flaw with the ‘mechanistic universe’ metaphor I excoriate at length in http://www.radioopensource.org/is-god-in-our-genes/#comment-8013 .)

As things stand now (another metaphor), our language has no commonly understood conceptual distinction between ‘mental acceptance of empirically validated tenets’ and ‘mental acceptance of religiously validated tenets’. This lack leads us to conflate the two types of ‘mental acceptances’. This conflation leads in turn to actions that attempt to deny the claim of conflation. And these actions take place within the domain of the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor.

Now, for an alternative, have a look at this: http://www.radioopensource.org/garry-wills-on-jesus/#comment-9631 —which just might be an example of the tenuous ARGUMENT IS DANCE metaphor Lakoff and Johnson give above.

I’d like to pursue this more, and soon too, with another follow-up, but for right now I gotta run.