The Genesis of Metaphor
The New
Oxford Dictionary defines the word ‘metaphor’ as: ‘a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object
or action to which it is not literally* applicable’, * … for literally read: actually = factually or: ‘a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something
else, especially something abstract.’ (Note: the last part should read:
‘something less abstract’. See below) The word is derived from the Greek metaphora, from metapherien
‘to transfer’, possibly (my addition) akin to meta’morph,
meaning: ‘beyond’ or ‘trans-form’. A metaphor is a user-unfriendly instruction bit (or information bite)
transmission condensed, abstracted and transformed into a user-friendly
representation (i.e. into a fiction). A metaphor acts as an imaginary abstraction (i.e. like a computer
icon) that re-presents, actually ‘trans-presents’ a package of information
stored (or active) on a file or folder. A metaphor (hence an imaginary abstracted transformation) is not the
same as the instructions bits (or information bite) it represents, much as
‘the map is not (the same as) the territory’. It is not possible to recover
the actual (hence real) information of which the metaphor is an imaginary
representation from the metaphor (i.e. icon). The reason metaphors = icons (= abstracted, imaginary, user friendly
information momentary systems’ status reports) are used (indeed invented by
the brain) is that they speed up response to vast amounts of instructions
(for instance, photon swarms striking the eye) which are both irrelevant and
obstructive to @best (read: instant, hence life saving) response by the user
in his actual world. The actual (or f’actual), hence pre-metaphor instructions base. A vast number of non-conscious instructions (= transmissions, i.e. transmitter
strikes) are condensed and combined to generate (i.e. transform) as a level 1
‘formation’. Example: The
sunset metaphor. The pre-metaphor level registering, condensing and ordering – the
former are all system’s related - of vast numbers of instruction bits; for
instance, responding to the impact (or impression) of data bits, for
instance, the photon strikes and their variations generated by the earth
turning anti-clockwise. The level 1
metaphor. A level 1 metaphor is a human’s (conscious) experience of the
end-state of pre-metaphor level instruction condensation and its
impact/impression response. The brain invents a quantum of experience, often
called a figure of the mind, and which is a personal fiction, i.e. a virtual
representation, albeit experienced as real by the observer,* to represent the
quantised, i.e. sliced by the observer output of a vast instruction
impact/impression. The fictional experience quantum (i.e. the virtual impact
whole) is not the actual source of the instructions (= transmitters, or their
source!) or the actual condensation of the instructions or the actual
instruction impact. The experience quantum happens as personally ‘emerged’
formation bite wholly different from the actual impact bite. That
(in-)formation bite is created to permit its creator instant response to
contact in his world, hence is self-user-friendly. E.g. seeing (i.e.
experiencing) the sun disappearing over the horizon.
(The underlined words are 2nd level metaphors). The level 2
metaphor. All internal expressions of pre-metaphor transmitter strike (i.e.
instructions) impressions, hence imaginary transformations of an experience
(for instance as concept, thought or feeling) are 2nd level
metaphors. In other words, they are invented as actual, information reduced
(i.e. abstracted and fictionalised), self -user-friendly output (i.e.
expression, hence transmission) icons. E.g. naming the sun’s disappearance a
‘sunset’. (The sun does not actually set. Hence the word ‘sunset’
is an imaginary figure = fiction of speech that represents (with an arbitrary
sound bite) an imaginary figure/fiction of the mind). The level 3
metaphor. All external expressions of an internal virtual image, i.e. a level
2 metaphor, experienced as a real fact.* Such expressions are spoken (i.e.
communicable sound bites) or written (i.e. communicable) drawings, to wit, as
figures (read: fictions) of verbal interaction. Such verbal expressions
served as general, low specificity, hence high currency level 2nd
metaphor communications devices. E.g. the word ‘sunset’ (i.e. a virtual reality) is invented. The level 4
metaphor
(i.e. the NOD’s definition). This is a highly specific, low general currency
3rd metaphor level representation designed to achieve maximum
impression/impact. In short, the 4th level metaphor is designed
for (or adapted from) a particular user (within a particular sub-culture) to
increase the probability of acceptance/response by that user and to speed up
that user’s response to his world. E.g. ‘sunset’ is represented to a toddler as ‘the
sandman is coming’. If one understands the metaphor sequence derived from the actual
initial experience, then ‘the sandman is coming’ makes perfect sense (allows
for a real sensory reaction activated via memory) when used to explain oncoming
darkness to a toddler. However, if the sequence is unknown, then its origin,
namely the original non-conscious instructions package, remains unknown, that
is to say, it is not possible to recover the original impressions/impacts
(upon the eye) about the earth turning anti-clockwise against the sun. The Buddhist term nirvana
functions as a 4th level metaphor. The problem with this metaphor
is that at least 15 3rd level metaphors, derived from 15 2nd
level metaphors, have been proposed as its derivation. The result is that
there is no certainty as to precisely what the word ‘nirvana’
means at either the 2nd or the 1st metaphor levels and at
the originating instructions (indeed, self-instructions) package level. During his 40+ years wandering around Northern India as an itinerant
beggar (= wisdom busker) the Buddha did not once produce either an
unambiguous 1st metaphor level definition (i.e. a 3rd
level description of his actual experience) or pre-metaphor level description
of the term nirvana. It is generally assumed
that his failure to produce a meaningful (hence wholly compelling) definition
of the term was intentional in that he, playing the Zero Game (i.e. no position =
sunya, like Nagarjuna centuries later), grasped the creative possibilities of
strategic ambiguity and which prevents closure. |