A Language of Metaphors: Chapter 3

An "Important" Chapter

Now, then. Now...then. "Now" seems to always become "then". This may be a product of the expansion of the universe - we move forwards in time. "Then" used to feel much like "now" does. It was once described in the present tense, but is now sealed away in our past. Some view the dimension of time a little differently: as if yesterdays "nows" still exist. Our memory behaves in a similar way - as if the facts we accumulate over our lives are trapped in time within our minds. Some things seem locked in place, while others drift away; but we do seem to associate certain memories with time. I don't remember when I first ate lasagna, but I do remember with some clarity the first time I ate it with my grandmother, though it may have been the same occasion. This selectivity seems based to some extent on importance.

I'll get back to the whole "time" thing soon enough - but first I need to deal with more important matters.

"Importance" is used to categorize things by their urgency or worth. The greater the importance, presumably the greater the priority in the hierarchy of our minds. One whose family is starving may find an ingot of gold far more important than one who is in the process of drowning. Given the choice between the values of an ingot and an inflated inner tube, the starving one and the drowning one would differ in opinion perfectly and sensibly, though the level of importance attributed to each resultant possession may be quite comparable. Importance is as much a matter of perspective as it is a matter of priority: The drowning one sure to find need for the gold, once rescued. For this reason, it is important not to assume importance without context.

Why is this statement (ironically) important? Those categories we so craftily built may collapse into meaninglessness. If I'd asked you to categorize the items that included bark, car and make-up into "important" and "unimportant", or add either of these words to the long string of words titling our categories, I may have caused havoc among the surfers of this site. It seems "important" is far more vague a term than it seems in its apparently decisive promptitude.

It might be wise, then, to consider adding parameters to our term "important"; parameters that are situational or perspective-based. A few examples might be: "important to home builders" ; "important in reducing the risk of infection during surgery" ; or "important in the handling of beverages during consumption". These terms are less like a definition and more like an attachment. Without such attachments, two things of apparently equal worth could not prioritized, leaving one with, say, cold water for making tea equal in value to warm water. The optimization of any process is a matter of balancing a variety of priorities: There are many important factors involved in a complex system.

The brain divides facts not only in a categorical sense, but also in a sense of priority. Things pertaining to reproduction, defense, shelter, food or pleasure, seem to supercede in value over say, debt, taking out the trash or filing our taxes. We see this, through the phenomenon of procrastination. Debt, for example, can be seen as a form of procrastination, since we buy or do what we want first, then slowly work towards the fulfilling the obligation. Serve the wants and needs of the self (and all that may encompass, including family, for example) then serve your "external" obligations. For many, if not most of us, we tend to value the certainty of our needs in the present, over whatever may lie in the future. Our top priority, tends to be "now".

Sure, one may save for retirement; but how often does one fast for several days at a time, setting aside money for their use in the far future? Such sacrifices would be on the assumption that although a little hunger may represent a mild immediate threat, the alternative may bear far greater consequences. The universality of sacrifices made by citizens during World War II, were on the assumption that, failing this, defeat and death would inevitably follow. A reverse of this has recently occurred, where a booming economy had inspired consumer confidence, resulting in a sharp rise in personal debt - despite the historically inevitable recession that will follow (economies have sleep/wake cycles too !). We measure the needs of the present against those of the future, with a clear bias towards catering to current needs. But what does this have to do with the Language of Metaphors ?

It's about time...!

Time is an absolute priority of the brain. Our reflexes and instincts are designed to provide an immediate response to a given, pre-established condition. This prevents the cumbersome process of thought from leaving us "one step behind" our deemed threat or opportunity - after all, our survival may hinge on that single, thoughtless action - without which, we may never get the chance to think again. Perhaps we may extend this: what if the thought process itself were designed for speed as well? It would need efficiency in its structure, just as a library or street network may give rise to speedy transport of books or commuters. If we stock our cupboard by pushing things back and without order, we tend to lose these things for some period of time, until we carefully unfold the cupboards' contents.

By using a time-priority, the brain has established a system found in our computer: it is called a "Non-Maskable Interrupt" or NMI. The NMI is not a "thought" process, but a "reflex" process: If this single trigger is activated, a series of unstoppable events are programmed to take place. An IRQ, or Interrupt Request, says that a situation has arisen that warrants attention "as soon as possible" or "when you're not too busy". Hunger pains are a way the body sends an interrupt request; quickly subsiding as food arrives. It seems the IRQ and NMI are the soapboxes for the wants and needs of our computer.

Since the brain seems to have recognized the importance of being "important", and the purpose of the metaphor is to assist the brain in making connections, we should acknowledge this within the structure of the metaphor - here's an example...

A manager leads the supervisor leads the worker...

A principal leads the teacher leads the student...

The president leads the executive leads the manager...

The commander-in-chief leads the general leads the colonel...

Each example is of a portion of a chain of command: the manager and the principal are both  shown as middle leaders, where the president or the commander-in-chief  are in relative positions of absolute authority. A metaphor placing together say, the manager and president, is not so readily made sense of as the following pairs:

A principal is the manager of a school.

A president is the commander-in-chief of a corporation.

(I'll ignore anything any of my American readers may point out about the U.S. president being the commander-in-chief of the military...)

Now, one could set a tone for an interpretation of the management style of a particular school by simply comparing it to the military chain of command...

"There goes the commander-in-chief...I mean...the principal...!", a disgruntled student may say, referring to the principal as dictator-like and militant.

This appears to illustrate that a hierarchical system is natural to the brain. If we aim to please the brain, our language had better include some form of stratification. So we'll need something through which we can grade various levels of importance from different perspectives.

It seems like a lot of hype over "nothing"...

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