Excerpts from the IGS message board

Excerpts from the IGS message board - learning GS topics, metaphors. The following edited excerpts come from a recent conversation onthe IGS IGS - Internet Go Server. message board. If you haven't joined the board yet, youmight want to think about doing so now. Those of us who participate inthese conversations find the topics varied, stimulating and a great wayto exchange thoughts and strengthen understanding about GS methods andconcepts. Note--the nature of the message board makes it both difficultand imperative to denote de��note?tr.v. de��not��ed, de��not��ing, de��notes1. To mark; indicate: a frown that denoted increasing impatience.2. emphasis. Internet etiquette etiquette,name for the codes of rules governing social or diplomatic intercourse. These codes vary from the more or less flexible laws of social usage (differing according to local customs or taboos) to the rigid conventions of court and military circles, and they interprets text inall capital letters as "shouting" which most people considerrude. To avoid that criticism, posters have taken to wrapping asterisksaround the word or phrase to intensify it, without "shouting." First Poster: Linguist lin��guist?n.1. A person who speaks several languages fluently.2. A specialist in linguistics.[Latin lingua, language; see George Lakoff "Lakoff" and "Professor Lakoff" redirect here. For the sociolinguist, see Robin Lakoff. George P. Lakoff (pronounced [ˈleɪ̯kɔf]and philosopher Mark Johnson Mark Johnson may refer to: Academics and scientistsMark Johnson (professor), philosophy professor SportsMark Johnson (footballer) (born 1978), Australian rules footballer Mark Johnson (hockey player) (born 1957) have pretty clearly established that metaphors play a significant partin our use of language. The, to me, interesting aspect of their theoriesis that they show that metaphors are *mappings* from a source*conceptual-domain* onto another target domain, and which preserve the*structure* of the source domain. It is also interesting to note that such metaphors are almostinvariably in��var��i��a��ble?adj.Not changing or subject to change; constant.in��vari��a��bil (at least so far as I have seen), mappings of *intensionallydefined* domains onto *extensionally* defined domains which give us, insome sense, more clearly defined "handles" to the*intensional (philosophy) intensional - A description of properties, e.g. intensional equality, that relate to how an object is implemented as opposed to extensional properties which concern only how its output depends on its input. * domains. Somehow, I can't help but feel that this theory has a placewithin the GS framework, but I am struggling at present to determinejust how it fits. One very obvious question is, "What, precisely,is a 'domain' and how does it fit"? Obviously, bothdomains of the metaphors are being represented at the verbal level, butit would seem to me to be necessary that they would also be representedin the non-verbal level in order for the relationship of the structuresof the two domains to be recognized. What do you think? Second Poster: I believe Lakoff and Johnson's tour de force onthis is Philosophy in the Flesh, which I hope to read in the comingmonths (after I get my copy back from my son!). As I understand it, this book brings all their previous thinkinginto focus, identifying the fact that we *have* or *are* bodies as thesource for our most effective metaphors. Our brains have a frame ofreference for eating, so we can apply eating metaphors to other conceptsand use all the brain's wired-in associations to make the conceptunderstandable. So a "domain," I think, means "the set ofinformation and associations relating to relating torelate prep → concernantrelating torelate prep → bez��glich +gen, mit Bezug auf +acca concept"--like eating,which has wires running to food categories, methods of consumption andpreparation, flavors and aromas Aromas may refer to: Odors, particularly pleasant ones, or Aromas, California, or Aromas, Jura, one of the 545 communes of the Jura d��partement, in France , health and illness, etc., etc. When weapply any part of the eating "domain" to an unrelated concept,like, say, thinking, we can call on all the associated items to"flesh out" the metaphor. Hence, "food for thought" and an idea that "sticksin your craw" and a proposal you can "sink your teethinto," etc., etc. The more of the original domain that we can mapto the metaphorical domain, the better the fit--or maybe that shouldread the other way 'round, I don't know Don't know (DK, DKed)"Don't know the trade." A Street expression used whenever one party lacks knowledge of a trade or receives conflicting instructions from the other party. . For GS purposes, these ideas give us both a framework forexplaining how our language conditions our perceptions (by creating a"domain" within which we operate without full consciousawareness), and a signpost indicating where we should look for pitfallsand abstraction confusions. FP: So, do you think that 'domains' are to be found inthe 'object' level or only in the 'verbal' levels?That's where I seem to be having problems in grasping graspinga similar equine neurosis to windsucking; the horse grasps a fixed object with its teeth, but does not swallow air. the concept.(Look Ma, another metaphor!) It would seem to me that they would have toexist at the 'object' level in order for the correlationbetween the source and target domains to 'come out' at the'verbal level.' Does any of this make sense to you? SP: Well, good question. Not having read the book, I can't sayfor sure, but, I guess I would say, yeah, and no. I think the substance for domains exists on the objectlevel--bodies and food, e.g. And I think Lakoff postulates that*because* we "are" bodies, we perceive/conceive domains on theobject level in a certain way. A body that has an exoskeleton exoskeleton/exo��skel��e��ton/ (-skel��e-ton) a hard structure formed on the outside of the body, as a crustacean's shell; in vertebrates, applied to structures produced by the epidermis, as hair, nails, hoofs, teeth, etc. , forexample, would have an entirely different "domain" concerningskin, and therefore a different set of metaphors to use verbally. It occurs to me to wonder if an aspect of elementalism El`e`men´tal`isma. 1. The theory that the heathen divinities originated in the personification of elemental powers. existsregarding the terms "object" and "verbal." I mean, Iunderstand that the word *is not* the thing. But in terms ofperceiving/conceiving, can we validly separate one from the other? Neveroccurred to me before. FP: I have been looking over the list of metaphors onBerkeley's website [1] and I have found that my earlier observationthat metaphors appeared to be mappings from 'extensionally'defined domains to 'intensionally' defined ones is notcorrect, and a lot of them do not relate to any bodily relationshipsthat I can determine. Well, I should modify that slightly. While *many*metaphors are not 'extensionally' defined, there are, indeed,many which are. However, I still think that 'domains' exist on thenon-verbal level. The question then becomes: how do they get there sincethey are not in any received through the senses? What occurred to me isthat this happens because of the link from the higher levels asdemonstrated in the Structural Differential The Structural differential is a physical chart or three-dimensional model illustrating the abstracting processes of the human nervous system. In one form, it looks like a pegboard with tags. Created by Alfred Korzybski, and awarded a U.S. . As I understand it, thingsdefined at the higher levels can become part of the non-verbal level. [1] http://cogsci.berkeley.edu/lakoff/MetaphorHome.html SP: Well, surely *some* metaphors qualify as second-ordermetaphors, or higher. In fact, if you browse that list on the Berkeleysite, you can see that. For example, the metaphor "Maintaining ABelief Is Loving A Partner" comes from the domain "Beliefs AreLove Objects" which relates to "Love Is A Unity (of TwoComplementary Parts)." I believe if you pursue the last one further, you come to theobject level, where because our bodies experience certain physicalphenomena in proximity to other bodies, we have a set of concepts thatwe verbalize as "love." Here again, we bump into the difficultline between the sensed and the spoken. How much of the"oneness" one feels with a loved one is object level and howmuch verbal? FP: When I first read about L & J's 'Metaphorwork,' as a linguist, I was very excited, but as a fledgling'General Semantician,' I now see the whole thing in a totallydifferent light. I seem to recall Korzybski writing something about'metaphors' in S & S. I'll have to look back into S& S [1] for that. Now, I feel the need to work on a second paper, to examine'Metaphors' in a GS framework. As I said above, I think thatsuch metaphors are possibly an even *more* insidious insidious/in��sid��i��ous/ (-sid��e-us) coming on stealthily; of gradual and subtle development. in��sid��i��ousadj.Being a disease that progresses with few or no symptoms to indicate its gravity. influence on ourproper 'evaluating' than is the simple 'is' ofidentification. [1] Maybe some kind posters know about this and can post therelevant items. [2] However, I am trying now to develop a *true* GS orientation,which is why I am calling myself a 'fledgling GeneralSemantician.' SP: I'm sorry, but I think you have missed the major points ofLakoff's work by a mile. He does NOT promote metaphors as a"better" way to influence others. He has uncovered the mechanism by which we, as human animals,develop metaphors intrinsically as an extension of our "being"an organism. His work completely rejects previous philosophical thoughtabout the meaning and operation of metaphor. We cannot and need not tryto escape metaphor-making. "All" communication involves somelevel of metaphor-making. Indeed, I think this can work as analternative or complementary explanation of Korzybski's"levels of abstraction." A metaphor provides a verbal handle on a concept that has noextensional referent ref��er��ent?n.A person or thing to which a linguistic expression refers.Noun 1. referent - something referred to; the object of a reference . "Love is a journey" allows us to talkand think about the insubstantial feeling we call "love" withthe tangible experiences we have when we move in a purposeful pur��pose��ful?adj.1. Having a purpose; intentional: a purposeful musician.2. Having or manifesting purpose; determined: entered the room with a purposeful look. way.Otherwise, we have NO handle for such talk. Lakoff's advice to the Dems has nothing to do with poeticlanguage. Indeed, such as evaluation harkens back to the traditionaldismissal of metaphor as nothing but poetry. Lakoff shows that metaphoroperates constantly whenever we communicate. He suggests that the choiceof the words we use to talk about something can "frame" ortrigger different, intrinsic metaphors. Without remaining aware of ourchoice of words Noun 1. choice of words - the manner in which something is expressed in words; "use concise military verbiage"- G.S.Pattonphraseology, wording, diction, phrasing, verbiage (consciousness of abstraction), we simply use the wordsof whoever started the conversation. If that person chose a metaphorthat doesn't include handles for the values we seek to espouse, weare TONGUE-TIED. The Reps use a lot of strong-father, obedient family metaphors. Inthat circumstance, the attempt to discuss nurturant nur��tur��ance?n.The providing of loving care and attention.nurtur��ant adj.Adj. 1. behavior comesacross as weak and feminine. Lakoff has suggested that the Dems rejectthe wording forced on them by the Reps metaphors and find their ownmetaphors that provide handles to their values. This is not evasiveness e��va��sive?adj.1. Inclined or intended to evade: took evasive action.2. Intentionally vague or ambiguous; equivocal: an evasive statement. or propaganda. This is taking control of the symbols by which theycommunicate. This is GS at its best. FP: I seem to be seeing contradictory statements here: "He [Lakoff] does NOT promote metaphors as a'better' way to influence others." and "Lakoff has suggested that.... [Democrats] find their ownmetaphors that provide handles to their values. This is not evasivenessor propaganda. This is taking control of the symbols by which theycommunicate." How is this latter quotation not implying that he wishes to use'metaphors' to influence, (assuming that the purpose ofcommunication from a political point of view is to influence)? In otherwords Adv. 1. in other words - otherwise stated; "in other words, we are broke"put differently , "Rule the Symbols" by which they communicate? All I am saying is that the use of metaphors seems to promoteprecisely what K was arguing against, i.e. Identification of differentlevels of abstraction so that proper evaluation is hindered. "A metaphor provides a verbal handle on a concept that has noextensional referent. 'Love is a journey' allows us to talkand think about the insubstantial feeling we call 'love' withthe tangible experiences we have when we move in a purposeful way.Otherwise, we have NO handle for such talk." I agree that we may, indeed, have no other way to handle such, butI still think that we must become more conscious of the abstractionsinvolved. SP: I cannot but agree that communication, especially politicalcommunication, has the purpose of influence. So, yes, of course, we usemetaphors in political language in order to influence people. My point is that we can't NOT use metaphors in politicallanguage, or any other language for that matter, because metaphor is inour nature ("in the flesh" as Lakoff says). Proper evaluationrequires understanding and controlling the inevitability of metaphor. You say you grant that we have no other way to handle such things.I say that's true because, as Lakoff explains, we intrinsicallymake metaphors based on our existence as an organism, AND because, asKorzybski says, we intrinsically abstract from the object level. To me,these two views sound like two ways to say one thing--we WILL abstractfrom one level to another, especially from the object or physical levelto the metaphorical or verbal level, by our very physical nature. Perhaps an example will help: the word "comprehend,"which we use to mean "understand" comes from the Latin for"to grasp." This represents the movement from the object level(fingers grasping an object) to the verbal and metaphorical level (mindsgrasping an idea). A huge fraction of language contains these kinds ofmetaphors, which don't even rise to the level of consciousness ineveryday language. If I use a word that relies on a touch metaphor andyour brain tends to respond to sight metaphors, you will have a hardertime "grasping" what I mean to say. So as I become moreconscious of my language choice, I can improve my communication bychoosing words that convey more meaning to you. So, yes, we must become more conscious of the abstractionsinvolved. That, to me, is precisely what Lakoff is recommending to theDems. Don't just take the language offered and ignore theimplications of the abstractions contained therein. Become CONSCIOUS ofwhat words and metaphors imply to and elicit from listeners. CHOOSE thelanguage you want to use so that you have a better chance ofcommunicating YOUR ideas and not the ideas of someone else. How is this promoting anything but what K prescribed for sanity Reasonable understanding; sound mind; possessing mental faculties that are capable of distinguishing right from wrong so as to bear legal responsibility for one's actions. SANITY, med. jur. The state of a person who has a sound understanding; the reverse of insanity. ?Consciousness of abstracting, to me, implies more than the passive actof awareness. It implies acting ON the awareness to change my behavior. FP: I will agree that *some* metaphors are 'in ourflesh,' but I am not yet convinced that this constitutes the solesource, but I can't argue the point at this time. Looking over thelist from Berkeley that I posted up-thread, it appears to me that someof the metaphors do *not* appear to be derivable "in theflesh," e.g., TIME IS MONEY, or IDEAS ARE OBJECTS. I think that a*lot* of research needs to be done on this. No, I didn't say that we *don't* have any other way, whatI said was that we *may not* have any other way. This remains to be seenalso, in my opinion. I am still skeptical of the ability of *any* political entities tonot use 'metaphors' in a way that will be consistent with'awareness of abstraction.' Without a GS-aware electorate, Ithink that it would be difficult for their values to be understoodotherwise [1]. However, I will have to wait and see on that one also. [1] I rewrote this sentence 3 times, and the first 2 were expressedstrictly in metaphor. It's too, too easy to do, but sometimes, Ithink, that it can be done without loss of understanding. Yes, a lot ofour vocabulary has its roots in metaphor, 'understand' as wellas 'comprehend,' but to the average person without specializedknowledge, the metaphorical origin no longer has significance. Third Poster: Well, interesting here: Brooke Gladstone Brooke Gladstone is the editor and co-host of National Public Radio's weekend show, On the Media. A co-winner of two Peabody awards for broadcast excellence, she is a frequent contributor to magazines and newspapers, including The Washington Post and Slate. mentionsframing (though it's not sure whether she is using it inLakoff's sense) in this week's "On The Media" (justthe first segment): http://www.onthemedia.org/stream/ram.py?file=otm/otm072905stream.mp3 The discussion is on the change from "war on terrorism Terrorist acts and the threat of Terrorism have occupied the various law enforcement agencies in the U.S. government for many years. The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, as amended by the usa patriot act"to "global struggle against violent extremism The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism (GSAVE), a term devised in May 2005 by the Bush administration|administration of US President George W. Bush to replace G.W.O. ." Frame shift?Metaphor shift? Political correction? Something else? This post could also go in the Symbol Rulers Forum, but I chose toput it here for the mention of framing. SP: This sounds to me like "all of the above" to someextent, but mostly a political correction, more like"doublespeak dou��ble��speak?n.See double talk.Noun 1. doublespeak - any language that pretends to communicate but actually does not ." I suppose we will have to watch out for peopleapplying the "framing" concept to any matter having to do withlanguage for a while. To me, a framing change would go from "war on terrorism"to something like "reconciliation of global philosophies" (nota very metaphorical example but hey, I just got up.) Meaning, a framingchange involves substantive changes in the underlying principlesespoused. In the Brooke Gladstone example, the change in wording has littleto do with presenting a different view of the referent, only withsoftening or elucidating or elaborating or embroidering the same view.They still want to get the bad people; they just think the listener hasobjections to the idea of war. Using "struggle" does implysome solidarity, a labor union labor union:see union, labor. concept, which does imply a small shiftin view. But since the "global" part probably stilldoesn't involve *every* nation, since some of them are the badpeople, the phrase does little to change the frame. A big shift in view, i.e., a framing change, has to encompass adifferent evaluation of the bad people, into victims or at least intopeople with justification or reasons for their behavior towards us, andwith some redeeming features. It has to replace the "us and them,good and evil" basis of the starting statement with a fundamentallydifferent basis, like "bringing home the prodigal sons prodigal son,in the New Testament, parable of Jesus about heaven and the sinner who repents. A young man leaves home and becomes a wastrel; repentant, he returns to be received with joyful welcome. " or"saving the boats sinking in the rising tide Noun 1. rising tide - the occurrence of incoming water (between a low tide and the following high tide); "a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune" -Shakespeareflood tide, flood ." When the symbols ruler says "violent extremism ExtremismSee also Fanaticism.drysadvocates of Prohibition in America. [Am. Hist.: Allen, 41]Jacobinsrabidly radical faction; principal perpetrators of Reign of Terror. [Fr. Hist. ," theframe changer ChangerThe name given to a clearing member that is willing to assume the opposite position of a futures contract within a larger alternative exchange, of which it also is a clearing member. , assuming they truly don't agree with that term, hasto use a different term to show that what THEY call"extremism" could also be called "patriotism" or"understandable outrage" etc., etc. After all, wasn't ita member of the party in power who said "extremism in the defenseof liberty is no vice"? A radical frame change might show that TOTHE ISLAMIST, this "extremism" is in defense of THEIR libertyagainst OUR terrorism--"middle eastern freedom fighters defendingtheir homelands against the grasping greed of the 1st and 2nd worldmilitarists." And of course, other frames no doubt exist. Such as "one moreskirmish in the age-old struggle between rich and poor," which putsthis "global struggle" into the perspective of"normal" human behavior. Or how about "supply anddemand"--they have the supply and we demand it. As usual, we come to find that word choice has a huge effect on theway the listener thinks about the ideas behind the words and about thespeaker of those words, for better or worse. At least, that's how I see it. Fourth Poster: I have read Lakoff (Metaphors, Elephants, etc.) andhave become enamored en��am��or?tr.v. en��am��ored, en��am��or��ing, en��am��orsTo inspire with love; captivate: was enamored of the beautiful dancer; were enamored with the charming island. of the constructivists (e.g., Paul Watzlawick Paul Watzlawick, Ph.D (July 25 1921 - March 31 2007) was a theoretician in Communication Theory and Radical Constructivism and has commented in the fields of family therapy and general psychotherapy. He lived and worked in Palo Alto, California until his death at the age of 85. ). Perthat view, "reality is unspeakable," so we model it with wordsand symbols (e.g., math). Our models "are not the territory"and none of us has a pipeline to reality to verify them. Instead, wehold various confidence levels in the models based upon criteria (e.g.,form, fit, and function). Framings are constructions of situations or actions. When we"reframe Re`frame´v. t. 1. To frame again or anew. " something, we reconstruct re��con��struct?tr.v. re��con��struct��ed, re��con��struct��ing, re��con��structs1. To construct again; rebuild.2. it. Both the framing andthe reframing reframing (rē·frāˑ·ming),n the revisiting and reconstruction of a patient's view of an experience to imbue it with a different usually more positive meaning in the are constructions. Framing thus has no priority overreframing, for the sequence could as well have been reversed in order. We frame "problems," only to hear some gung-ho optimistsay, "That's not a problem. That's an opportunity!"Pogo's answer to that was, "Then we is surrounded byinsurmountable opportunity." I understand the administration's motive for reframing"The War on Terror This article is about U.S. actions, and those of other states, after September 11, 2001. For other conflicts, see Terrorism. The War on Terror (also known as the War on Terrorism " because they've constructed a"war" we can't win. So let's not Let's Not is a science fiction short story by Isaac Asimov. It was first published in Boston University Graduate Journal in December 1954. It was written for no payment as a favour to the journal, and later appeared in the collection Buy Jupiter. frame it as a war. Not all reframings are specious spe��cious?adj.1. Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.2. Deceptively attractive. . I remember in the 1970s when thegasoline supply became scarce. The then government said, "Wedon't have a gas shortage ... we have an energy shortage." Ithought, "Here we go again with the useless word games," but Ichanged my mind when I was educated about the conversion of variousenergy sources into each other. I feel strongly about your points on framing from one's pointof view. To us, we own patriotism and the "terrorists" ownextremism. To them, we own capitalistic cap��i��tal��is��tic?adj.1. Of or relating to capitalism or capitalists.2. Favoring or practicing capitalism: a capitalistic country. extremism and they own piety pi��e��ty?n. pl. pi��e��ties1. The state or quality of being pious, especially:a. Religious devotion and reverence to God.b. .Who is right? Form, fit, and function won't tell us. Theconstructivists might say, "That's the way both sides haveconstructed it." If we say, "But who is right?" theymight respond, "That question is unanswerable. Reality isunspeakable." So we and the "terrorists" continue our deadly squabbles,and there is no parent to tell us, "Now you kids just STOP thatnonsense or you're BOTH going to your rooms!" I'd likethe U.N. to be that parent, but my own country won't let it be(e.g., our opting out of the World Court, et al). Constructivism constructivism,Russian art movement founded c.1913 by Vladimir Tatlin, related to the movement known as suprematism. After 1916 the brothers Naum Gabo and Antoine Pevsner gave new impetus to Tatlin's art of purely abstract (although politically intended) says we have a choice between framing and remainingmute mute(myt), in music, device designed to diminish uniformly the loudness of a musical instrument. . If we choose to frame, our normal human tendency is to frame fromour own "privileged" viewpoint. A civilized world requiresthat we disputants step up a meta level to frame from a more no-faultviewpoint, but patriotism, ours and theirs, prevents that. SELECTED BY NORA MILLER