To intend is to devise, thus invent or mimic invention. We recognize
the significance of this in ancient writings, such as the Bible, where the
dividing line between the happenstance existence of ignorance and the determined
existence of knowing was also the dividing line between sinless existence and
responsibility for ones actions and destiny. This is reflected in present-day
jurisprudence, where ones intent to commit a crime may result in far stiffer
punishment than ones inability to recognize their wrong (guilty of premeditated
murder versus not guilty by reason of insanity).
To have an accident is to meander from ones intentions - a
happy accident being that which resulted in something that "couldn't have
worked out better if planned". Serendipity is such a happy accident,
but a car crash may be described as a bad accident: yet though we may
measure desirability through "happy" or "bad", we do not
categorize accidents into "good" and "evil" simply because
good and evil require intent.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is
a phrase that shows that one does not appear in hell through mere error - guilt
implies knowing: we do not regret a mistake until we understand it. Many sects
of Christianity believe that animals, deemed naturally lacking the capacity to
feel guilt, are not judged by God, thus arrive in Heaven without question. Other
religions will stratify creatures through their apparent ability to comprehend
the world; for these religions, a creature needs the ability to intend in order
to have a soul. Either way, "sin" seems never truly accidental, and
all sainthoods ironically the product of good intentions.
Accidents imply unpredictability - we consider it "ones
own fault" if they break their neck while bungee jumping. But an accidental
pregnancy is no accident at all: all the elements involved worked well within
their unpredictable nature - the accident, it seems, was the result of
ignorance or risk taking. In other words, the parties involved got together as a
result of intent, messed up, then claimed it an accident simply because the pregnancy
itself was unintended. This is reflected in the way society treats children born
this way - to be a child born of an accident is deemed somehow lesser than one
born of planning (and to be born out of wedlock lesser than being born in
marriage). Unlike most other victims of accident, accidental parents are not
pitied, but rather expected to take responsibility - this motif uncannily
similar to that of knowing, intent and sin.
Yet before we judge too harshly, an appeal is heard from the
guilty: "I couldn't stop myself". This implies that one did not decide
upon committing the wrongful act itself, but that it was a natural product of
some other force, such as addiction or childhood abuse. Countless cases appear
every year with this as a sole defense: I did the act, but not the crime. The
separation of the physical act from the source of intent - a waver of responsibility
not based on the unknowing of insanity, but on the inability of one to
intentionally conquer ones own nature. The defendant had been "struggling
with alcoholism for several years..." or "seeking treatment to help
control his anger". We treat these people with the same compassion
delivered to victims of accidents - even suggesting that they have "already
been punished enough". When one attempts to defend themselves in court,
they will most often try to prove that they did not commit the act, or had no
ability to control their actions to begin with; the latter being the
fallback position for failing at the prior. Proving this outside influence on
ones actions can mean the difference between a death penalty and freedom, or
condemnation and absolution.
It is situations where we determine the existence of an inability
to control ones actions that clearly demonstrate a tight bond between
accident and nature. We even pit God against Nature with phrases like "Act
of God", "Gods will" or "Gods plan", implying a
universe run according to Gods' intentions versus "freak of
nature", "back to nature" or "naturally occurring",
implying a sense of randomness, anti-design or happenstance that is purely accidental.
The tone of ones metaphor, then, may draw parallels between
"accident and intent" and "natural and invented". For
example, the DNA can be as much described as a "blueprint" for life,
implying intent and design, as it can be illustrated as a "misprint"
of ancestral genes, implying evolution as a series of accidents. We could deem
evolution as the random shuffling of genes, no less than we could imply that the
deck is stacked. The metaphor Slot
Machines and Genetics, implies that the law of averages inevitably makes
random mutations come up with occasional "winners", viewing that mere
survival in a competitive world is, indeed, victory. Whatever the function of
your metaphor, be sure to recognize the stigma attached to whether something
exists through mere chance or through specific design, and know that this may be
used to infuse your writing with your general view of the world.
Back to Metaphor
Essays
Note: The Language of Metaphors finds subjectivity even within the
differences between opposites, as relativity may come into view. Was the
telephone an "invention", as often described, or an
"accident" as history often depicts. Many so-called inventions are
actually only undiscovered discoveries. In a universe with physical laws, both
nature and law-abiding citizens are forced into obedience: whatever derivations
either may make, all logical ones comprising the same ingredients are inherently
equal. No doubt a straw worked as well for the inventor as it did for the
mosquito. The one thing both can agree on is the universal logic and functional
efficacy of a vacuum-powered enclosed corridor for inbound liquids!
