Metaphor is Stepping Stool

[coberst]

Metaphor is Stepping Stool

I think that we might say that ‘X is A’ is a useful means for comprehending ‘linguistic metaphor’ and also comprehending a new and revolutionary cognitive theory, ‘conceptual metaphor’.

Linguistically I might say ‘X is A’ by which I mean X, the unknown, is like ‘A’ the known. The phrase ‘understand is grasp’ allows me to help someone comprehend the concept ‘understand’ by comparing it to the concept ‘grasp’. ‘It just flew over my head, I was unable to grasp it’ is an expression we all readily comprehend and it also is an example of using a metaphor to express our meaning.

But now comes the revolutionary ‘conceptual metaphor’, which I suspect will become a paradigm of cognitive science. ‘Conceptual metaphor’ is ‘cognitive DNA’. The idea ‘conceptual metaphor’ can be comprehended somewhat by considering it to be DNA like.

An infant might have the experience of warmth when first held by her mother. A concept, which is the neurological structure of this experience, is composed into a ‘mental space’. The experience, now becoming a concept, is structured by the brain so that the brain can draw appropriate inferences about this experience.

Let me call this concept, this experience, this neurological network, ‘B’. Cognitive science, with the aid of technology, has evidence to support the hypothesis that there are many circumstances wherein the brain automatically and without our consciousness of the happening, will ‘map’ parts of ‘B’ onto a new mental space and that structure will become part of the ‘DNA like structure’ of a new experience.

The experience of warmth by the infant can become part of the ‘cognitive DNA’ of the new and subjective concept ‘affection’. This is why we can easily comprehend that ‘affection is warmth’.

Cognitive science, which consists of scientist from the fields of neurology, philosophy, linguistics, and probably others, has been utilizing new technology to develop this possible new paradigm for cognitive science over the last three decades. The book “Philosophy in The Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson is my source for this knowledge.

If your curiosity is aroused you might do a Google of “conceptual metaphor” (use the quotes).

[Symbology]

A Thesaurus has about 1063 primary concepts in it such as "Religion". Then they list about 50,000 words underneath each of those primary topics. Basically the closer the word is listed up front, the closer the word is related to the primary concept. And since they are nicely numbered, many computer programs have taken advantage of this metadata to help find "related" information on the web. I am pretty sure that Google uses it to help their relevance calculation.

I am just wondering if maybe some of these primary Thesaurus entries might be these Metaphor DNA that you are talking about. Basically the building blocks of concepts from which all other concepts are derived.

Unfortunately the numbering system was not carried forward in Thesaurus.com but possibly some other web site out there might have that important information.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Symbology

A Thesaurus has about 1063 primary concepts in it such as "Religion". Then they list about 50,000 words underneath each of those primary topics. Basically the closer the word is listed up front, the closer the word is related to the primary concept. And since they are nicely numbered, many computer programs have taken advantage of this metadata to help find "related" information on the web. I am pretty sure that Google uses it to help their relevance calculation.

I am just wondering if maybe some of these primary Thesaurus entries might be these Metaphor DNA that you are talking about. Basically the building blocks of concepts from which all other concepts are derived.

Unfortunately the numbering system was not carried forward in Thesaurus.com but possibly some other web site out there might have that important information.

I suspect that all of the primary concepts that you speak of are abstract ideas, i.e. concepts which them self are combinations of more than one concept. We might think of these primary concepts as being primary molecules such as water or sodium. These primary molecules are made up of atoms and I would be inclined to say that these atoms are literal experiences from which all of the molecules are made.

We might say that love is a primary concept which is made up of many other concepts and one of these being affection and we can then break down affection and see that it is made up from primary experiences such as the first time an infant is held and the feeling of warmth and security are part of that conceptual structure.

I suspect that if we could model the concept ‘love’ and look at it like we do a DNA model we would see a complexity that is similar.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by coberst

I suspect that if we could model the concept ‘love’ and look at it like we do a DNA model we would see a complexity that is similar.

I can see how your DNA metaphor is relevant at a simplistic level in the context of conceptual "building blocks", but I cannot see that it is structurally relevant.

The structure of DNA is the pairing of a small number of building blocks. The blocks of a given type are identical, and any given block type is used many times in different combinations. Also, as far as I'm aware, a specific base pair does not have a specific meaning. The meaning is derived from the sequence of base pairs. Thus we may liken base pairs to letters. We may imagine that a given base pair corresponds to the letter "o", and another base pair may correspond to the letter "i". Thus changing a single letter (or base pair) in the word "love" gives us "live", which has a very different meaning. But the letters "o" and "i" (in this context) have no meaning in themselves.

This structure is very different from how I believe that concepts are related. I would suggest that the branches (or roots) of a tree is a better metaphor for the way that concepts are related to each other. Each concept is different, and has a specific meaning (or range of meanings). Concepts are related to each other in "family trees". I therefore see them as having little or no structural resemblance to DNA.

What is your view on this?

On a more trivial level, I'm not familiar with the term "stepping stool", but that may be because I'm English rather that American. We would use the phrases "stepping stone" and "foot stool". To English ears, "stepping stool" sounds like a malapropism. But, as I've said, that may be a cultural difference, and is not relevant to the underlying meaning.

[coberst]

I won’t try to defend my metaphor or perhaps better called analogy; it is not a good one.

Several reasons why I think your analogy do not fit the bill:
In such an analogy what would the tree trunk represent?
How could we show the constant give and take between conceptual structures?
How can we show the dynamism of conceptual structures?
How do we comprehend the constant building of new concepts?

You are correct about my “stepping stool” being a malapropism. I won’t try to defend it either.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by coberst

Several reasons why I think your analogy do not fit the bill:
In such an analogy what would the tree trunk represent?
How could we show the constant give and take between conceptual structures?
How can we show the dynamism of conceptual structures?
How do we comprehend the constant building of new concepts?

Hi coberst,

Quite. That's the problem with metaphor and analogy as a tool for conveying meaning. It's only relevant in a limited sense.

[Symbology]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

On a more trivial level, I'm not familiar with the term "stepping stool", but that may be because I'm English rather that American. We would use the phrases "stepping stone" and "foot stool". To English ears, "stepping stool" sounds like a malapropism. But, as I've said, that may be a cultural difference, and is not relevant to the underlying meaning.

Here in the Southern part of the U.S. most every household has a step stool. It is usually two steps and is easily portable. Usually used by domestic goddesses to access a higher plane

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by Symbology

Here in the Southern part of the U.S. most every household has a step stool. It is usually two steps and is easily portable. Usually used by domestic goddesses to access a higher plane

Thanks for that. I was sure there was a good answer to it

[Symbology]

Originally Posted by coberst

I won’t try to defend my metaphor or perhaps better called analogy; it is not a good one.

I disagree. I think it is a very good analogy. It is just important to recognize it in the context that jedaisoul introduced. The base pairs are the letters, but together they make genomes and then chromosomes.

The concepts build on each other.

For example Trust is the basis for all relationships, be they personal or professional. Respect is a key component of Trust. If I do not respect someone then they cannot trust me.

To me each of these are like genomes.

Whereas Character and Integrity are more like chromosomes. Much more complex concepts that include both Trust, Respect, Consistency etc.

Integrity is an interesting concept. The word is derived from the word Integral. And it is basically the sum of all that has come before (the sum under the curve). Two people may not agree on values. But each can respect the others consistency to their own belief and recognize that each has Integrity.

So for example, my own signature could appear to be a lack of consistency, or if you know my desire to hear both sides of an equation, and a willingness to appear foolish to get to the heart of the truth, then you would know its consistent with my own set of values.

[coberst]

Symbology

Well said! If I should again need an advocate I shall call on you.