Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.

[coberst]

Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.

 

It seems to me that the forum members who participate in a thread approach the experience invigorated with much the same attitude as does a boxer entering the ring or a soldier going into battle.

 

Metaphor entailments (to transmit or to accompany) we live by:

He attacked my argument.

I have never beaten this guy in an argument.

If you do not agree with my statement then take your best shot.

I shot down each of his arguments.

 

We approach a forum response much like we approach a physical contest. We have a gut feeling about some things because our sense of correctness comes from our bodies. Our “gut feeling” often informs us as to the ‘correctness’ of some phenomenon. This gut feeling is an attitude; it is one of many types of attitudes. What can we say about this attitude, this gut feeling?

 

“Metaphors we live by”, a book about cognitive science coauthored by Lakoff and Johnson, says a great deal about this attitude. Conceptual metaphor theory, the underlying theory of cognitive science contained in this book, explains how our knowledge is ‘grounded’ in the precise manner in which we optimally interact with the world.

 

“The essence of metaphor is understanding one kind of thing in terms of another…The metaphor is not merely in the words we use—it is in the 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 in that way—and we act according to the way we conceive of things.”—Lakoff and Johnson

 

Let us say that in early childhood I had my first fight with my brother. There was hitting, shoving, crying, screaming, and anger. Neural structure was placed in a mental space that contained the characteristics of this first combat, this was combat #1. Six months later I have a fight with the neighbor kid and we do all the routine thing kids do when fighting.

 

This is where metaphor theory does its thing. This theory proposes that the characteristics contained in the mental space, combat #1, are automatically mapped into the mental space that is becoming combat #2. The contents of combat #1 become a primary metaphor and the characteristics form the fundamental structure of mental space combat #2.

 

This example applies to all the experiences a person has. The primary experience is structured into a mental space and thereafter when a similar experience is happening the primary experience becomes the primary metaphor for the next like experience. This primary metaphor becomes the foundation for a concept whether the concept is concrete experience or abstract experience.

 

What I am saying is that for some reason the Internet discussion forum member considers engaging in a forum thread is a competition, it is a combat, and the primary combat metaphor is mapped into the mental space of this forum experience and thus the forum experience takes on the combat type experience. It seems to that is why lots of forum activity gets very combative.

 

Is it any wonder that the adrenalin starts pumping as soon as we start reading the responses to our post?

 

Do you feel like you are in a battle with me after reading my claims?

 

Is this why most replies are negative?

[Boerseun]

Arguments exist when people with differing opinions debate a particular subject.

 

Wars exist when those very same people are armed.

 

So, Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill simply had a bit of an argument. Their debating tactics differed slightly from ours, though.

 

I fail to see the big revelation here.

 

And, to say that most of the replies to your posts are agressive and in opposition to yours, is simply a sampling error. There are literally millions of people on planet Earth who'll agree with your standpoints. They simply don't bother to reply, though. The majority of replies you get to your posts will be from those people in disagreement with you, because they disagree with you.

[Tormod]

To pick up on the last line of the post - I was not aware that most replies are negative. Not all discussions are pro/con type debates, so in many topics there isn't so much a "discussion" as a dialogue. In debates things do tend to get, well, debated, and therefore there will be "negative" replies.

 

Would you say this is a negative reply?

[coberst]

To pick up on the last line of the post - I was not aware that most replies are negative. Not all discussions are pro/con type debates, so in many topics there isn't so much a "discussion" as a dialogue. In debates things do tend to get, well, debated, and therefore there will be "negative" replies.

 

Would you say this is a negative reply?

 

No this is not a negative reply.

 

I would say that when I post that X is true and the response comes back that X is false and it is obvious that the responder knows little or nothing about X then it is definatly a negative reply. There are variations of this. Often the response becomes insulting which tends to imitate the way we demonize the enemy. It is no accident that forums often must tame down the "flame wars".

 

I get negative responses whenever I say anything about metaphors and I am certain that few if any know anything beyond the most simply things about metaphor. The basic thing I find is that if the responder knows little about the matter the response tends to become more argumentative (war like).

[Buffy]

I get negative responses whenever I say anything about metaphors and I am certain that few if any know anything beyond the most simply things about metaphor.

How about a nice cookie? :hyper:

 

The sugar--and hopefully chocolate chips!--will make it less likely that you will in the future blame everyone for not knowing what a metaphor is.

 

Then everyone will feel better!

 

By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher,

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

...I get negative responses whenever I say anything about metaphors and I am certain that few if any know anything beyond the most simply things about metaphor. ...

It is a well known factoid that the probability of an argument becoming a "flame war" or fight is inversely proportional to the amount of real content in the argument.

 

The vast majority of people (well... those in America anyway) on the Internet have almost no appreciation of the meaning or uses of "metaphor". Nor to the critical role that metaphor plays in cognition and self-awareness.

 

There are a number of us who post positive replies to the usual drivel around here so that Tormod won't know just how much competitive battle-lust goes on around here. :)

 

Personally, I think most of your posts are just peachy keen and I agree with you. However, I find your avatar ugly, disgusting and offensive.

 

Here, drink this hemlock while I load up my metaphorical Smith and Wesson 357. And then lay on, MacDuff. :hihi::phones:

[TheFaithfulStone]

Lakoff and Johnson:

 

It's like the bible code for post-structuralists.

 

Seriously. Language is all a metaphorical / concept map of a different metaphor / concept map. Argument is war. Communication is a conduit, words are containers.

 

 

What are containers? What is war? Lakoff and Johnson is descriptive, not prescriptive. If you accept a certain level of their basic premise (which is that we approach arguments like war, and that we approach time like money, and communication like conduits) it's largely a premise that "sells" itself on it's ability to predict the obvious. Your use of it as a method of criticism reads into their work a bias that isn't there. (It's important, BTW, because like many important things, it only seems blindingly obvious once somebody really smart figure it out. (Ideas are light!))

 

If an argument is like war - so what? That's helpful for knowing how english speakers approach an argument (we're worried about indefensible positions, and gaining ground, etc.) Your approach utilizes Lakoff and Johnson (citations are weapons!) in a way that's not terribly accurate. Criticizing people for taking an argument as a war (which is kind of what's implied by "most replies are negative" and "battle with me" and your assertion that most forum experiences are "combative") is sort of like criticizing people for saying the sky is blue, when clearly, that color is red. (Actually, we've kind of all agreed to call it blue.)

 

If you're going to speak English - especially written English. (Writing is speaking!) then arguments are going to be war, because that is how the grammar is structured. (Language is a building!)

 

It isn't that 'argument is war' is a negative way of looking at an argument - it's just the 'English as she is spoke' way of looking at it.

 

Try to talk about time without also talking about money. In English. Believe me, you'll be wasting your time. Better to spend it constructively.

 

To craunch the marmoset,

TFS

[coberst]

It is a well known factoid that the probability of an argument becoming a "flame war" or fight is inversely proportional to the amount of real content in the argument.

 

The vast majority of people (well... those in America anyway) on the Internet have almost no appreciation of the meaning or uses of "metaphor". Nor to the critical role that metaphor plays in cognition and self-awareness.

 

There are a number of us who post positive replies to the usual drivel around here so that Tormod won't know just how much competitive battle-lust goes on around here. :)

 

Personally, I think most of your posts are just peachy keen and I agree with you. However, I find your avatar ugly, disgusting and offensive.

 

Here, drink this hemlock while I load up my metaphorical Smith and Wesson 357. And then lay on, MacDuff. :hihi::phones:

 

ou are corret I shall remove it. It signifies my world view. Humans have a great technological strength but that strength sets on two spidly legs which represent our moral apptitude.

[Pyrotex]

ou are corret I shall remove it. It signifies my world view. Humans have a great technological strength but that strength sets on two spidly legs which represent our moral apptitude.

Thanks for having a good sense of humor. :):phones:

[coberst]

FaithfulStone

 

What is disappointing in most of my posts is that hardly ever does anyone connect with the important aspect of my post. Everyone connects with the stuff I add just to generate their interest. In this case it is the argument is war. What is important in my post and which no one ever seems to read is about the nature of conceptual metaphor. It seems that humans cannot handle any idea that is new to them.

 

The following three paragraphs are the reason for the post. I guess few people ever read but a ferw lines here or there until they find something to comment about.

 

Let us say that in early childhood I had my first fight with my brother. There was hitting, shoving, crying, screaming, and anger. Neural structure was placed in a mental space that contained the characteristics of this first combat, this was combat #1. Six months later I have a fight with the neighbor kid and we do all the routine thing kids do when fighting.

 

This is where metaphor theory does its thing. This theory proposes that the characteristics contained in the mental space, combat #1, are automatically mapped into the mental space that is becoming combat #2. The contents of combat #1 become a primary metaphor and the characteristics form the fundamental structure of mental space combat #2.

 

This example applies to all the experiences a person has. The primary experience is structured into a mental space and thereafter when a similar experience is happening the primary experience becomes the primary metaphor for the next like experience. This primary metaphor becomes the foundation for a concept whether the concept is concrete experience or abstract experience.

[Pyrotex]

...hardly ever does anyone connect with the important aspect of my post. Everyone connects with the stuff I add just to generate their interest. In this case it is the argument is war. What is important in my post and which no one ever seems to read is about the nature of conceptual metaphor.....

Coberst,

As a matter of fact, I do connect with the significanse of "metaphor" and I'm interested in hearing what you have to contribute on it. Perhaps like some others, I first assumed that "metaphor" was just a minor side issue in your thread. After all, the word "metaphor" does not appear in your Title.

 

Perhaps in the future, it would help to pick a Title that is straight to the subject you really wish to discuss.

 

As for "metaphor", it sounds very much like my offering of the Mind as a Linguistic Modeling Structure. Everything we know about the "outside" world is really framed within our brains as a linguistic structure. Metaphor would play a critical part in this theory, as when we experience something, and remember it (and understand) for its metaphorical relationships to other concepts, events, symbols, names.

[Turtle]

Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.

...

 

Oh yeah baby! >> http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-humanities/9235-alls-relatively-fair-love-debate.html?highlight=All%27s+Fair

[Buffy]

What is disappointing in most of my posts is that hardly ever does anyone connect with the important aspect of my post.

That is clearly all their fault and they deserve all the derision that is sent their way!

 

Such evil awful people you all are! You should be ashamed of yourselves! :eek2:

 

If Dracula can't see his reflection in the mirror, how come his hair is always so neatly combed? :phones:

Buffy

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Sooooooooo....this isn't a thread bout how some hypographers turn threads into raging battlefields with much virtual bloodshed till Mods or administrators shut them down?

[Pyrotex]

Sooooooooo....this isn't a thread bout how some hypographers turn threads into raging battlefields with much virtual bloodshed till Mods or administrators shut them down?

Apparently it isn't. And boy, am I disappointed!! :phones:

 

It would seem that Coberst REALLY wanted to discuss the significance and importance of "Metaphor" as applied to the general theory of how this and that are connected to those other things and, in general, are appropos to whatever it was that was at the very core of his intended subject. :eek2:

[Buffy]

Sooooooooo....this isn't a thread bout how some hypographers turn threads into raging battlefields with much virtual bloodshed till Mods or administrators shut them down?

No.

 

What this country needs is more free speech worth listening to, :eek2:

Buffy

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

 

It would seem that Coberst REALLY wanted to discuss the significance and importance of "Metaphor" as applied to the general theory of how this and that are connected to those other things and, in general, are appropos to whatever it was that was at the very core of his intended subject. :eek2:

 

O.k I was a little confused before I read the above quoted....But now I'm REALLY confused...and hungry....

 

what was the subject????

 

Oh yeah metaphor...

 

I thought a metaphor was a story that related to a particular topic and directly or indirectly explained said topic.

 

I'm confused....and hungry....perhaps after a lil snack

this shall make some sense....I hope...