A Language of Metaphors: Chapter 1

Making Connections

We make connections between things by finding some form of commonality they may have. This simple process starts at an early age in life, usually with physically similar items, for example: a child may use a box as a house, or a cat may use a ball of yarn as a mouse. Two physical entities compared in function become identical in use, forming an object-pair. A real-life metaphor; the birthplace of many physical tools. An object-pair is the stuff of improvisation.

As we age, we extend this practice to include increasingly figurative things: "Life is like a tree" we may conclude, in simile form, but extend as a metaphor by "finding our roots" or "branching out". This association between "life" in a non-material sense and "tree" in a physical sense, allows a physical model for a non-physical entity (a concept/object pair).  In this case, one is forced to reach into their experience of life from a philosophical view, then compare it to the common physical experience of a tree. Such metaphors leave many bewildered, since those who can only view the tree physically see no metaphor - the biblical "Tree of Life" is physical for some, while figurative for others. A concept-object pair is the stuff of poetry.

We eventually find relationships between two non-physical entities: "Life is a hypothesis" we may say, adding "one is brought into being, tests themselves against the world's lethal scrutiny, then concludes; hopefully, having pushed the world forward along the way..." Certainly, one could argue the view that each living creature is a DNA that tests its design in a real-life setting. Relationships between such two concepts (a concept-pair) can grow to become as easy to form, express and comprehend as relationships between two objects (an object-pair). A conceptual metaphor; the birthplace of many tools of thought, and the stuff of invention.

But what if one said "Life is a mountain"? Would they be in disagreement with one who relates life to a tree? Perhaps "life" is like many things; then again, perhaps these things themselves may have metaphorical similarities. Let's have a look at what "metaphor" means from a more reliable source than myself - after all, I can't even seem to figure out which spelling to stick with!! So head on to this link and get it from our pals at Merriam-Webster...

metaphor

As you can see, the metaphor needs similarity between one object or concept and another - a similarity in principles. Certainly both the "tree" and the "mountain" can be related to "life", but if they can be related to "life" on similar grounds, perhaps they may also be related to each other. Further, we'll try and triangulate these relationships as an experiment to see if one relationship pair can allow us to discover another relationship pair.

We'll start with..... "The tree of life comes into being, reaches outward in many directions, then comes to a close, leaving only a trace of what it once was."

Now we'll try it with a mountain... "The mountain of life comes into being, reaches outward in many directions, then comes to a close, leaving only a trace of what it once was."

In both cases, tree and mountain follow a process similar to "life", in fact, whether one is defining "life" as a  biological phenomenon or as a sequence of experiences, the relationship seems to ring true. A "good" metaphor, may be described as one which relates along a string of underlying principles, perhaps even to the point of a great, complex network of principles. But at that point, it seems this is not a mere metaphor, but rather a "truth".

"The mountain range sprouted forth, branching out in all directions, only to die millions of years later, its spectacular life now reduced to mere splinters", I just wrote, then added, redundantly "it came into being, reached outward in many directions, then came to a close, leaving only a trace of what it once was."

As much as this may be true, upon deeper reflection one may add "The tree comes into being through a seed, which is an encapsulation of a material that will sprout to emerge from the encapsulation, then the earth, to take on new heights." So does a mountain, should it start as a volcano; with a pool of magma bound by rock hidden deep within the earth. So too, do we of the living, start within the physical womb, or the encapsulation of ignorance. Whether in a figurative or physical sense, the principles seem to match up. This is the key to the "Language of Metaphors": a language based not on "things" but on "principles" - a single word for each distinct, underlying princple. Since the metaphor sees no difference between "object or concept" - or ethnic language, perhaps this may be a tool for universal translation: a Rosetta Stone.

Rosetta Stone

[NOTE: If you're feeling a bit lost at this point - send me an email; don't be shy, my teaching skills are not as great as my "sitting around drinking coffee" skills! To go further into this stuff without a firm grasp thus far may only worsen things for both of us!]

Now we are about to embark on a journey to a profile of our examples. In each case, an encapsulation exists, whether as an object to the mountain, tree or child; or as the concept to the mind or soul of the child. "What is an 'encapsulation'?" asks our inner philosopher. Our librarian tells us:

Encapsulation

But really? Is that it? I mean, does it just stop at being something that somehow surrounds something else?

Let's just take a little look at the scary, scary world of "The Dimensions". Actually, it's not all that "scary": it's just everything we know, everywhere, throughout time, the universe and everything else. Maybe it is a little scary. 

A single frame from a film is but a projection in two dimensions. As much as it may lead one to believe it is not flat, it is, for all intents and purposes, without thickness. The colours, however, are the result of light - which is energy, just as the sound would be. Well, if we're looking at this as it were within the moving picture, we'd better realize that it has yet another dimension: time. This single frame out of the feature film exists for, let's say, about a thirtieth of a second: it is then  about a thirtieth of a second thick, in the dimension of time. It has no implicit weight. In fact, if it had weight and depth, as well as its current dimensions of length, width, time and energy, this cartoon image would not be a representation, but an existing "object". But for now, it is an object that conveys an idea.

That single frame of a movie, or "cell", is encapsulated within its length and width by the frame that bounds it. It is encapsulated by time, into its little split-second existence, each time it is brought to life through presentation. Each colour is a wave, bound in frequency to be, say, red or blue. What about its depth or mass? What if a dimension is missing...can it be encapsulated?

Since an encapsulation surrounds something, should that "something" take no space, its surroundings would then close in together, leaving that non-dimensional "something" no different than a nothing. Take two sheets of paper with a third sheet between. If that third sheet were without thickness, the two encapsulating sheets would meet; and if that thin distance between them were removed, the two sheets would in fact become as one thick sheet. This is the nature of non-dimensional entities: they simply cannot exist.

Though not existent in our real-life world, non-dimensional things are used in our everyday life. This could be described as what we call "ideas". Mathematics or philosophy are disciplines that study the control and manipulation of non-dimensional or theoretical things in order to apply these learnings to real-life objects and situations and vise-versa. Scientists may take real-life measurements in order to better understand  existing objects. Whether something is viewed in a qualitative or quantitative  way, or understood by its underlying principles, it is possible to form a metaphor for it. It's a matter of keeping perspective...

A perspective can be in both a physical, or dimensional sense; or in a non-physical, or non-dimensional sense. For example, one may look at a sheet of paper as a material with mass and size, or they may view it as a medium of communication. It is both. However, a metaphor for that sheet by its physical properties will not necessarily match a metaphor for its function as a medium of communication. A difference in perspective may result in a difference in interpretation: the criterion we set - the (often unwritten) parameters of the metaphor - result in its meaning.

A parameter and a perspective are similar, at times, but it is safe to say that a parameter more like an aspect and a perspective is more like a context. Your keyboard is an object with all the dimensional attributes described earlier. Its aspects may include keys, board and cord; the available perspectives one may take when assessing it, however, could include viewing it as a writing tool, a corridor between mind and computer, or as a stylish paperweight. At times, parameter and perspective may overlap, such as cases where form and function meet (for example, a yardstick).

The rods and cones of the eye are equal in function to the keys on a computer keyboard: each capable of translating a signal in one form into data in another form. Both are peripheral devices.

The rods and cones of the eye are the keys of an optical keyboard: each acts as a writing tool.

The fingers are as rays of photons, the keys are as rods and cones, the wires in the cord are as optic nerves and blood vessels.

The keyboard is the eye of the computer.

These statements are largely unified in a single dimensionalized statement: The keyboard and the retina are  multiple unidirectional portals (a group of one-way doorways) between the dimensions of time and energy (the act of typing or the streams of light) and those of space, matter and energy (the brain or the computer circuits). The keyboard and the retina are both quite different and quite the same. They are the same geometrically, being an arrangement of sub-units; while they are also different physically, being activated by light on one hand, and mechanical  force on the other. They are the same in principle, being a one-way communication tool (a "mono-dimensional peripheral sensory device"); while they are also opposite in function, being used as a tool for reception by the brain on one hand, and a tool for expression by the brain on the other; if one uses the perspective of the human as a constant. If one allows for mutual perspectives, we see that the experience of the computer is quite similar to that of the human user: A symbiosis that has truly made the computer an extension of our nervous system and mind. To ensure that my written piece is as I have intended on writing it, I keep completing the two-way flow of data by typing while checking my screen. That's what keeps my english good!

This concludes the introduction to the Language of Metaphors. Some of the material thus far may seem far closer to a description of the simile: in due time, this site will show that perhaps at the deepest level, both similes and metaphors are alike.

Why have I gone on about these things of dimension, encapsulation, perspective and parameter? Because I can!! And because these are a gateway to understanding the "Language of Metaphors". This gives us a few key words from which the concepts we will explore will stem. What you know will be reshaped in ways that may change your view of things. If my writing is successful, you will become the Rosetta Stone of yourself: allowing the free conversion of your knowledge of computing, for example, into genetics; or plumbing into electrical. You see, the "Language of Metaphors" is actually not simply a language, it is also a learning tool. 

Before continuing, you may wish to read this tutorial on the dimensions...

...then come back and move forward in an orderly fashion...

Chapter 2

Copyright: John D. Casnig 2000 - Use with permission only.