A Language of Metaphors: Chapter 2

Order! Order in the Court!!

It's time to get organized. A simple task, really. Just sort things in order and away you go...

I'll provide you with some common objects; your thankless, unpaid job is to bunch them into categories, then name the category. If you don't feel like doing this, I will do it for you anyway...

tree bark          asphalt        paint       shirt        rope         wall       curtains       mask       can        cup        door              car             make-up        envelope       wrapper       box        wire        milk    basket         eyelid         table         gloves         shoelace         photo         soap

Certainly, these are all "things"; physical objects of every dimension. One may view and categorize them under the simple terms "natural" and "invented" or "single material" and "group of materials". Some may be arguable in their placement. This is because both examples of categories I had given were of dichotomies, or situations where there are only two diametrically opposed categories.

Now we'll be less divisive, and explore the implications of what we create...

coverings: tree bark, asphalt,  paint, shirt, curtains, mask, can, make-up, envelope, wrapper, eyelid, gloves. [occasionally; rope (as a wrap for pottery), wall (surrounding a prison), box (if used to enclose), milk(as a baste), basket (if with a lid), photo(if used to cover a damaged wall), soap(as a film)]

Arguably, a cup, door, car, wire, table or shoelace may also end up as coverings. If we said "natural coverings", only tree bark and eyelid would fit the category. If we said "invented coverings" all but the bark and eyelid would fit. If we extend this further and dictated "invented specifically for the purpose of covering", only asphalt, paint, shirt, curtains, mask, make-up, envelope, wrapper and gloves would fit. If we go further still, with "invented specifically for the purpose of covering as a protection", only shirt, envelope, wrapper, gloves  (occasionally paint, mask, make-up). Finally, we go all the way: "invented specifically for the purpose of covering as a protection for hands". Only gloves appear under this category.

This categorization process ultimately defined the object; singling it out against a backdrop of many things of similar general function, such as "covering". Each subcategory is a like a parameter; an aspect which is used to define what is grouped below it. In math, one may call these "sets", "subsets" and "intersects". In military or business circles, they may be termed "divisions", "branches"  or "co-operatives", sorting staff with different functions, rather than household objects, as above. Let's just try an experiment with this categorization thing...

Bark is the shirt of a tree.

Make-up is paint for the face.

An envelope is the wrapper of a letter.

This seems to work, though the first example seems a bit strained. Let's compare the three for some insight...

Bark is the shirt of a tree.

The bark is compared to a shirt. A shirt is an invention. Most of us have been raised with the shirt as a necessity - a given - in this world of mainly clothing-wearing societies. From our youth, however, much more attention is paid to a shirt as an expression of self, or concealment of naughty-bits first; then, perhaps, as an article of protection from the environment. For the tree, we may tend to view the bark as protection from the environment first - if at all. When it comes to categories, shirts tend to fall under "fashion" before "function". Our preconceptions of the meanings behind "shirt" and "bark" have caused the two to appear less related than they really are. Further, the cold inflexible fortitude of bark does not compare with the warm softness of a shirt fresh out of the dryer (...especially, ironically, a shirt made of rayon!)

Make-up is paint for the face.

Make-up and paint are quite the same to us. We tend to paint our walls or face as a form of decoration or to cover up blemishes. Both being true, we can readily identify with the connection. The "shirt and tree" example provides a comparison of one natural object and one invented object: we don't seem to instinctively divide objects into the "natural" and "invented" categories. If you invented a type of rock-like material, then discovered it somewhere occuring naturally, it would be tough to pick only one category under which it would fall (we invented concrete, but stone "conglomerates" exist naturally). If "we" are "naturally occuring", and it is our "nature" to invent, then it is tough to truly distinguish between nature and invention: Both are equally as real. We are born to find, build and apply tools - the nature of intelligence - often doing so by associations such as the ones above: this is why metaphorical associations are more than simply natural to us - they have been essential to our survival. No doubt, during the ice age for example, may one have found themselves forced to wear the bark of trees for protection.

An envelope is the wrapper of a letter.

An envelope is the wrapper of a letter. What do you think? Is an envelope actually an encapsulation - a concealment or protection of its contents? Or is it a presentation device or decoration? Maybe you view it as a transportation medium, like a car, with the letter its sole occupant? Is it an addressing mechanism? That envelope, it seems, is not only the wrapper, but a whole slew of things. If the author of that metaphor is referring to a wrapper as a protective device, then its meaning will be far removed from that resulting from a view of the wrapper as a decorative device. In the first view, as an encapsulation, one may infer that they should use a strong envelope that seals well; the second view, as a decoration, could be taken as meaning that the envelope should be visibly appealing.

In each example,  interpretation relied entirely on definition, which, in turn, was a matter of perspective . A clearly defined metaphor will be more widely understood. The fewer possible perspectives of its' component meanings, the simpler the process of comparison will be. If either of its constituent parts are vague in their interpretability, the metaphor collapses into ambiguity. In general, the examples illustrate a key tool for our Language of Metaphors: THINGS THAT MATCH IN UNDERSTOOD PRINCIPLE BUILD STRONG METAPHORICAL RELATIONSHIPS. This is nothing new to the definition of metaphor, but if we were to establish a categorical language that details an object or idea by its component perspectives, parameters or properties, for example, we may also have the beginnings of a Rosetta Stone for all things: a "thesaurus of principles", so to speak.

We'll now try the "gloves" category again; this time we'll ask "What else fits under this category...?"

"Invented specifically for the pupose of  covering as a protection for hands"

gloves, mittens, oven mitts, muffs, baseball glove, thimble(?), hand cream, brass knuckles, catchers mitt....(we'll ignore insurance that "covers" a surgeons hands!).

As you can see, we would be able to divide these further yet again: I'll use "...as a protection for hands and to control intrusive objects". Perhaps an oven mitt may qualify, but definitely the baseball glove and catchers mitt. Now we'll split things further, inserting "fast-moving" before "...objects". The catchers mitt survives.

"Invented specifically for the purpose of covering as a protection for hands and to control intrusive, fast-moving objects"

Now, just for fun, we'll replace the parameters ["hands" and "objects"] with ["celebrities" and "reporters"]...

"Invented specifically for the purpose of covering as a protection for celebrities and to control intrusive, fast-moving reporters"

This quite accurately describes the roll of a press agent  during times of great public interest in a movie star. Let's try a metaphor...

"A press agent is a catchers mitt for overzealous reporters". One can visualize a throng of reporters with mikes and cameras closing in on the star, then the press agent appearing, arms wide open to catch and detain the reporters, then issuing some pre-cooked statement to satisfy their interest. It seems that a metaphor has the ability to bring to mind a strong mental image - as if to cause one to make a natural connection between these things rather than a contrived connection. Perhaps this is not merely a coincidence, maybe this in inherent within the structure of the brain.

Just as a hyperlink is to the internet, we may be wired in such a way as to naturally link related concepts. We do not simply connect between similarities in the spelling or definition of words in the sense provided by  our learned language; we also connect through conceptual similarities - but concepts are not readily linguistic in nature - certainly concepts do not lend themselves to an onomatopoeia or hieroglyph. This means that language may actually impede on communication in the brain, in order to provide a medium for communication with others in society - an interface - a translator between the brains own language and the languages of external communication. Certainly this holds true within our dearest model of the brain - the computer - where mechanisms have been devised specifically to reduce the strain caused by the translation from a higher programming language into the machine language and binary that the processor actually "thinks" in. If every thought we had needed a conversion similar to Celsius from Fahrenheit, we would be too overwrought to think of great things.

Take the word "box", for example: after we've established that we are speaking about the cube-like object and not the verb tense from the sport, we each have something residual in our minds - I have an image of a small cardboard shipping box, while you may have the image of a cereal box or jewelry box. Now, I'll ask you to define the word "box" in this context. After a bit of mental juggling, if you are anything like me, you have come up with an awkward description that does not seem to universally apply, the more it is thought out. For example: Though cardboard entered my mind at first, the material could be of many kinds; apparently it behaves as a solid, though some boxes are flexible; it may or may not have a lid; it may have any number of sides, such as a milk carton; it may or may not be designed for re-use; it may be full or empty. A lot of possibilities here. Yet you know what I mean when I tell you to "think outside of the box".

Now I'll ask you to think of a six sided object that is used to carry things. "Box" is quick to mind. It is faster to connect something through its meaning than through its word. When trying to communicate to someone of a foriegn language, out come the hands. The hands are used to define the action or object: as a pointer or a shape building tool, we construct a word by defining it first. "I'm hungry", pointing to my mouth then stomach. Our love of the mime (actually, I can't include myself in this case)... Your love of the mime, may be attributed to the non-verbal universality of our interactions with real life forces. The umpire in a loud stadium,  the trader in a busy farmers' market or a Wall Street broker on the trading floor may come to mind. It might be said that all these gesticulations are, in fact,  metaphors: substitutions for the real thing.

Finally, I'll ask you to envision a cube. (I know that I've been asking a lot of you lately, but please bear with me...!). At once, a six-sided-something may appear. Look around your room and see how many things fit this template. You may start with a strict "length equals width equals height" list of cubes - perhaps you see a fitting box, or some dice. But if we're anything alike, this list grows to include "cubes" that are not evenly sided, such as your computer or a book. Then the list expands to include objects that are "not-quite-square" and definitely not "cubes". This phenomenon of the mind is quite useful - our imagination. We "fill in the blanks" to adapt an object to fit our description: a process essential to the creation of tools and relationships. An imaginative process we use in the development of metaphors. The essence of intelligence.

A metaphorical statement often results in the response "I've never thought of it that way before." The truth, it seems, is that with a good metaphor, one doesn't have to think of it at all.

Moving right along to matters of greater importance.......Chapter 3

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