Metaphor is Stepping Stool

[coberst]

Metaphor is Stepping Stool

 

I think that we might say that ‘X is A’ is a useful means for comprehending ‘linguistic metaphor’ and also comprehending a new and revolutionary cognitive theory, ‘conceptual metaphor’.

 

Linguistically I might say ‘X is A’ by which I mean X, the unknown, is like ‘A’ the known. The phrase ‘understand is grasp’ allows me to help someone comprehend the concept ‘understand’ by comparing it to the concept ‘grasp’. ‘It just flew over my head, I was unable to grasp it’ is an expression we all readily comprehend and it also is an example of using a metaphor to express our meaning.

 

But now comes the revolutionary ‘conceptual metaphor’, which I suspect will become a paradigm of cognitive science. ‘Conceptual metaphor’ is ‘cognitive DNA’. The idea ‘conceptual metaphor’ can be comprehended somewhat by considering it to be DNA like.

 

An infant might have the experience of warmth when first held by her mother. A concept, which is the neurological structure of this experience, is composed into a ‘mental space’. The experience, now becoming a concept, is structured by the brain so that the brain can draw appropriate inferences about this experience.

 

Let me call this concept, this experience, this neurological network, ‘B’. Cognitive science, with the aid of technology, has evidence to support the hypothesis that there are many circumstances wherein the brain automatically and without our consciousness of the happening, will ‘map’ parts of ‘B’ onto a new mental space and that structure will become part of the ‘DNA like structure’ of a new experience.

 

The experience of warmth by the infant can become part of the ‘cognitive DNA’ of the new and subjective concept ‘affection’. This is why we can easily comprehend that ‘affection is warmth’.

 

Cognitive science, which consists of scientist from the fields of neurology, philosophy, linguistics, and probably others, has been utilizing new technology to develop this possible new paradigm for cognitive science over the last three decades. The book “Philosophy in The Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson is my source for this knowledge.

 

If your curiosity is aroused you might do a Google of “conceptual metaphor” (use the quotes).

[Symbology]

A Thesaurus has about 1063 primary concepts in it such as "Religion". Then they list about 50,000 words underneath each of those primary topics. Basically the closer the word is listed up front, the closer the word is related to the primary concept. And since they are nicely numbered, many computer programs have taken advantage of this metadata to help find "related" information on the web. I am pretty sure that Google uses it to help their relevance calculation.

 

I am just wondering if maybe some of these primary Thesaurus entries might be these Metaphor DNA that you are talking about. Basically the building blocks of concepts from which all other concepts are derived.

 

Unfortunately the numbering system was not carried forward in Thesaurus.com but possibly some other web site out there might have that important information.

[coberst]

A Thesaurus has about 1063 primary concepts in it such as "Religion". Then they list about 50,000 words underneath each of those primary topics. Basically the closer the word is listed up front, the closer the word is related to the primary concept. And since they are nicely numbered, many computer programs have taken advantage of this metadata to help find "related" information on the web. I am pretty sure that Google uses it to help their relevance calculation.

 

I am just wondering if maybe some of these primary Thesaurus entries might be these Metaphor DNA that you are talking about. Basically the building blocks of concepts from which all other concepts are derived.

 

Unfortunately the numbering system was not carried forward in Thesaurus.com but possibly some other web site out there might have that important information.

 

I suspect that all of the primary concepts that you speak of are abstract ideas, i.e. concepts which them self are combinations of more than one concept. We might think of these primary concepts as being primary molecules such as water or sodium. These primary molecules are made up of atoms and I would be inclined to say that these atoms are literal experiences from which all of the molecules are made.

 

We might say that love is a primary concept which is made up of many other concepts and one of these being affection and we can then break down affection and see that it is made up from primary experiences such as the first time an infant is held and the feeling of warmth and security are part of that conceptual structure.

 

I suspect that if we could model the concept ‘love’ and look at it like we do a DNA model we would see a complexity that is similar.

[jedaisoul]

I suspect that if we could model the concept ‘love’ and look at it like we do a DNA model we would see a complexity that is similar.

 

I can see how your DNA metaphor is relevant at a simplistic level in the context of conceptual "building blocks", but I cannot see that it is structurally relevant.

 

The structure of DNA is the pairing of a small number of building blocks. The blocks of a given type are identical, and any given block type is used many times in different combinations. Also, as far as I'm aware, a specific base pair does not have a specific meaning. The meaning is derived from the sequence of base pairs. Thus we may liken base pairs to letters. We may imagine that a given base pair corresponds to the letter "o", and another base pair may correspond to the letter "i". Thus changing a single letter (or base pair) in the word "love" gives us "live", which has a very different meaning. But the letters "o" and "i" (in this context) have no meaning in themselves.

 

This structure is very different from how I believe that concepts are related. I would suggest that the branches (or roots) of a tree is a better metaphor for the way that concepts are related to each other. Each concept is different, and has a specific meaning (or range of meanings). Concepts are related to each other in "family trees". I therefore see them as having little or no structural resemblance to DNA.

 

What is your view on this?

 

On a more trivial level, I'm not familiar with the term "stepping stool", but that may be because I'm English rather that American. We would use the phrases "stepping stone" and "foot stool". To English ears, "stepping stool" sounds like a malapropism. But, as I've said, that may be a cultural difference, and is not relevant to the underlying meaning.

[coberst]

I won’t try to defend my metaphor or perhaps better called analogy; it is not a good one.

 

Several reasons why I think your analogy do not fit the bill:

In such an analogy what would the tree trunk represent?

How could we show the constant give and take between conceptual structures?

How can we show the dynamism of conceptual structures?

How do we comprehend the constant building of new concepts?

 

You are correct about my “stepping stool” being a malapropism. I won’t try to defend it either.

[jedaisoul]

Several reasons why I think your analogy do not fit the bill:

In such an analogy what would the tree trunk represent?

How could we show the constant give and take between conceptual structures?

How can we show the dynamism of conceptual structures?

How do we comprehend the constant building of new concepts?

 

Hi coberst,

 

Quite. That's the problem with metaphor and analogy as a tool for conveying meaning. It's only relevant in a limited sense.

[Symbology]

On a more trivial level, I'm not familiar with the term "stepping stool", but that may be because I'm English rather that American. We would use the phrases "stepping stone" and "foot stool". To English ears, "stepping stool" sounds like a malapropism. But, as I've said, that may be a cultural difference, and is not relevant to the underlying meaning.

 

Here in the Southern part of the U.S. most every household has a step stool. It is usually two steps and is easily portable. Usually used by domestic goddesses to access a higher plane :)

[jedaisoul]

Here in the Southern part of the U.S. most every household has a step stool. It is usually two steps and is easily portable. Usually used by domestic goddesses to access a higher plane :)

 

Thanks for that. I was sure there was a good answer to it ;)

[Symbology]

I won’t try to defend my metaphor or perhaps better called analogy; it is not a good one.

I disagree. I think it is a very good analogy. It is just important to recognize it in the context that jedaisoul introduced. The base pairs are the letters, but together they make genomes and then chromosomes.

 

The concepts build on each other.

 

For example Trust is the basis for all relationships, be they personal or professional. Respect is a key component of Trust. If I do not respect someone then they cannot trust me.

 

To me each of these are like genomes.

 

Whereas Character and Integrity are more like chromosomes. Much more complex concepts that include both Trust, Respect, Consistency etc.

 

Integrity is an interesting concept. The word is derived from the word Integral. And it is basically the sum of all that has come before (the sum under the curve). Two people may not agree on values. But each can respect the others consistency to their own belief and recognize that each has Integrity.

 

So for example, my own signature could appear to be a lack of consistency, or if you know my desire to hear both sides of an equation, and a willingness to appear foolish to get to the heart of the truth, then you would know its consistent with my own set of values.

[coberst]

Symbology

 

Well said! If I should again need an advocate I shall call on you.

[Kriminal99]

The most advanced approach to reason and understanding dictates that we carefully limit our use of metaphors.

 

We use them naturally to help understand our enviornment as you say, but we don't naturally know the difference between a good situation to use a metaphor and a bad one.

 

It can never be known for sure whether or not using a metaphor in place of a different situation will lead us down the wrong path. You just always have to be weary of something about the new situation that differs from the one you are comparing it to.

 

However we can determine some ways that are ok to use metaphors and some ways that are not ok.

 

It is always ok to use one situation to suggest a potential understanding of another - to give us a place to start. It is not ok to assume that a second situation is completely like the first just because something about it is similar or indicates that they are similar.

[coberst]

Kriminal

 

We are meaning creating creatures. We live, die, and kill based upon the values we create. Values are abstract ideas; they are the creation of imagination combined with literal experience. Our values cannot be comprehended if they are not grounded in literal experience. Conceptual metaphor grounds our abstract concepts via unconscious natural action. We further this metaphoric comprehension consciously by using linguistic metaphor.

[Kriminal99]

Please define "unconscious natural action"

 

If I understand what you are saying, I may agree somewhat. Like infinity would be defined as something like "that time you counted to a high number, but this time didn't stop counting". Or Omniscience might be defined as something like "that time you saw someone that knew something someone else did not, but the omniscient person always knows something you did not". Omnipotent would be defined like "that time you saw someone achieve their goals regardless of the influence of others (power?) but the omnipotent person always gets what they want without regard for the influence of others."

 

Understanding what is going on in the head is an important step, but for me the purpose of understanding it is so I can fix what is wrong with what is going on in the head. I would see the way concepts like these are often created as something like "ghetto rigging" ideas...

 

If you put two ideas in front of each other that cause an immediately perceivable contradiction even with our puny human brains, then we know that it doesn't make any sense - as in the case of "Oh look it is a tall short person!"

 

But any time it would take more than a step or two to reason out that an idea created from putting together two others doesn't really make sense then the idea seems to stand as something that could exist.

 

Such as the case of omni-potent, and the "paradox" that destroys it in which philosophers ask the question "If god is infinitely powerful, than can he create a rock that is so heavy even he cannot lift it?".

[coberst]

Please define "unconscious natural action"

 

".

 

 

Cognitive science, as delineated in “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson, presents a new paradigm for cognitive science. This new paradigm might be called the “conceptual metaphor” paradigm. The theory is that experiences form into concepts and some of these concepts are called “primary metaphors”. These ‘primary metaphors’ are often unconsciously mapped from the originating mental space onto another mental space that is a subjective concept, i.e. abstract concept.

 

Physical experiences of all kinds lead to conceptual metaphors from which perhaps hundreds of ‘primary metaphors’, which are neural structures resulting from sensorimotor experiences, are created. These primary metaphors provide the ‘seed bed’ for the judgments and subjective experiences in life. “Conceptual metaphor is pervasive in both thought and language.” It is hard to think of a common subjective experience that is not conventionally conceptualized in terms of metaphor.

 

Metaphors can kill and metaphors can heal. Metaphor can be a neural structure that provides a conscious means for comprehending an unknown and metaphor can be a neural structure that is unconsciously mapped (to be located) from one mental space onto another mental space. There is empirical evidence to justify the hypothesis that the brain will, in many circumstances, copy the neural structure from one mental space onto another mental space.

 

Linguistic metaphors are learning aids. We constantly communicate our meaning by using linguistic metaphors; we use something already known to communicate the meaning of something unknown. Many metaphors, labeled as primary metaphors by cognitive science, are widespread throughout many languages. These widespread metaphors are not innate; they are learned. “There appear to be at least several hundred such widespread, and perhaps universal, metaphors.”

 

Primary metaphors have this widespread characteristic because they are products of our common biology. Primary metaphors are embodied; they result from human experience, they “are part of the cognitive unconscious.”

 

Metaphor is a standard means we have of understanding an unknown by association with a known. When we analyze the metaphor ‘bad is stinky’ we will find that we are making a subjective judgment wherein the olfactory sensation becomes the source of the judgment. ‘This movie stinks’ is a subjective judgment and it is made in this manner because a sensorimotor experience is the structure for making this judgment.

 

CS is claiming that the neural structure of sensorimotor experience is mapped onto the mental space for another experience that is not sensorimotor but subjective and that this neural mapping becomes part of the subjective concept. The sensorimotor experience serves the role of an axiom for the subjective experience.

 

Physical experiences of all kinds lead to conceptual metaphors from which perhaps hundreds of ‘primary metaphors’, which are neural structures resulting from sensorimotor experiences, are created. These primary metaphors provide the ‘seed bed’ for the judgments and subjective experiences in life. “Conceptual metaphor is pervasive in both thought and language. It is hard to think of a common subjective experience that is not conventionally conceptualized in terms of metaphor.”

 

The neural network created by the sensorimotor function when an infant is embraced becomes a segment of the neural network when that infant creates the subjective experience of affection. Thus—affection is warmth.

 

An infant is born and when embraced for the first time by its mother the infant experiences the sensation of warmth. In succeeding experiences the warmth is felt along with other sensations.

 

Empirical data verifies that there often happens a conflation of this sensation experience together with the development of a subjective (abstract) concept we can call affection. With each similar experience the infant fortifies both the sensation experience and the affection experience and a little later this conflation aspect ends and the child has these two concepts in different mental spaces.

 

This conflation leads us to readily recognize the metaphor ‘affection is warmth’.

 

Cognitive science hypothesizes that conceptual metaphors resulting from conflation emerges in two stages: during the conflation stage two distinct but coactive domains are established that remain separate for only a short while at which time they lose their coactive characteristic and become differentiated into metaphorical source and target.

 

I find that this ‘conceptual metaphor’ paradigm is a great means for comprehending the human condition. But, like me, you will have to study the matter for a long time before you will be able to make a judgment as to its value. This book “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson, from which I derived these ideas and quotes, is filled with ideas that are new to the reader and thus studying it will require a good bit of perseverance.

 

Have you ever, before reading this post, thought that the brain unconsciously copies the neural structure from one mental space onto another mental space? Those who find this idea compelling will discover, in this new cognitive science paradigm, a completely new way of thinking about philosophy and human nature.

 

This new cognitive science paradigm is the best thing to happen to philosophy since Thales! How about them apples?