Metaphors...

After reading from metaphors we live by I thought about burke's idea of the proverb. In the reading several words are shown to have systemic use that stem from socio-historical usage. Time is money is a phrase I believe reflects the adaptability of language as well as its dependency on the contemporary views of that time. Bhaktin wrote that language has a root in socio-political context but Lackoff and Johnson (J&L) make the turn of phrase sound like the proverb; certain phrases work because they reflect a truth of the society they stem from.

The Icon comic reflected a lot of the same ideas we've been covering; language as symbols of symbols; words have different meaning depending on who uses them and who hears them, etc. but it raised a new idea in my mind. Language as a sense. The metaphor of the car as an extension of the self, we become part of it to go where we need to go. Like language what we say and how we say it either furthers our agendas or defers them. The tongue is a rudder, propeller, wing, an axel, or all of them. Though these metaphors all mean the same thing because they are the part of the vehicle that moves in the direction we chose to go.

So rhetoric is a part of the psyche. Assigning symbols and organization, as shown J&L's article, is how we become familiar with the world or learn how to operate in it. The way I view the orientation metaphor is as we grow we become more aware; the younger we are the less knowledge there is in our experience. So every good thing, because we have this association with knowledge and height, is going to higher than every bad thing. So I started working backwards from this point of metaphors and saw how this idea developed in my mind. Ideas are directions and the conduit metaphor showed the different ways of how to get from one logical conjunction to another.

When we hear a word our minds associate with many other associations to arrive at the specific meaning of its use. Words threaded together do the same yet when the sentence is heard it can have its meaning in the context with which it was used despite their individual meanings.

Work Cited:

McCloud, Scott. “The Vocabulary of Comics.” In Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. New York: Harper Collins, 1994. 24-45. 

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Excerpts from Metaphors We Live By (1980). The Literary Link. Janice E. Patten. 2010. San Jose State University. Web.http://theliterarylink.com/metaphors.html.

It’s Iconical

It’s Iconical.

While reading Scott Mccloud’s “Understanding Comics” I noticed a few examples that show how things can change over time and differing perspective and in differing contexts.

The page on the pipe (24) -- well the picture (or drawing, painting, or another languaged representation of something depending on personal meaning) of a pipe -- the subject ‘pipe’ is nuanced and questioned as forms of materiality and categorization, while really it’s not really any of those things, it’s a comic.

On the page with the Icons and the hypocriticizing captions was interesting for several reasons (26). First was the ‘these are not ideas.’ The icons were so relevant to me that it kind of felt like an attack on personal freedoms, because I associated them with their representative ideals before I recognized them as simple images. Then there was the ‘STOP – this is not law.’ Beyond the image, a stop sign itself is not a ‘law,’ but representative of one.  If you tell an officer that you didn’t stop at the stop sign because “it’s just a sign, it’s not low,” you’re almost undoubtedly getting a ticket.  Then there was the ‘this is not food.’ Yeah, that’s not really food, you can’t really pick it up and eat it.

Mind vs. Language, McCloud vs. Author Function

McCloud demonstrated an interesting set of phenomena in this chapter, and in a very revolutionary way.  The concepts were perfectly executed and the frames relatively seamless (I'm not a comic lover by any means, but I got my footing after a while and found it to be a great read). Aside from these elements, there was the transition from what we had previously discussed in class (the "Ceci n'est pas une pipe." painting) to a deeper, almost more metaphysical realization of the way the conscious works with our sensory, mainly visual, intake.  And even beyond that, how our language works with our conscious.

It is still difficult, in my opinion, to concretely pin down the relationship between the mind and language. The mind created language, because language does not exist outside the mind. Yet the mind, as a metaphorical concept, does not exist.  There are chemical signals in the brain, atoms and neurons colliding and charging, but the concept of a physical mind does not exist anywhere in the human body. There is, however, a concept of the mind, an idea that a man’s thoughts bounce around in some sort of internal, compact container in a corner of his brain, while the rest of the cortex focuses on physical, bodily functions.  Although there is no physical mind, there is an abstraction that is the human “mind.” In this case, the words that we constantly think, speak, read, write, listen, etc. in created the mind; the conceptual mind came about with thoughts and internal dialogue.  Therefore, I would argue that language is the material of which the mind is made. 

Self-Centered by Metaphor Use?

McCloud makes a bold statement by accusing the human race of being selfish due to how we personify images, even if there isn't anything to be manifested. He uses cartoons as a wonderful example of how we automatically make a connection with a character. We give these characters life by exploring their worlds and simultaneously seeing us as them. In other words, we have a tendency to fuse with inanimate objects. Another great example would be how we drive our vehicles or when we eat with utensils; our minds are subconsciously finding ways to extend or bend reality. But is it really selfish to do so?

Metaphors: Not Just for Poetry

Like many individuals, when writing I do not always jump to use metaphors. If someone were to ask me if I felt like metaphors were a necessity in writing or arguing I would probably say no. Some may even argue that metaphors are utilized primarily in more artistic forms of writing such as poetry. However, in “Metaphors We Live By” by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, the importance of metaphor in arguments is explained and I have found that this is not the case. 

I found similarities between this text and John Locke’s “An Essay on Human Understanding.” The similarities I found had to do, in a sense, with the idea of language as a system. In Locke’s writing, one can see his structured breakdown of how language and words work as a system. Lakoff and Johnson begin with the metaphor “Argument is War.”  They say, “We can actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own. We gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies.” Here, one can see the importance of metaphors according to the authors. Not only are such metaphors useful, but they are important in everyday conversation such as arguments. Statements in arguments do not just happen, but must be planned. One strategically uses their words to counter argue and prove themselves correct.

McCloud, Comics, and You.

In McCloud's article "The Vocabulary of Comics", he presents us with the idea that "an icon is an image used to represent a person, place, thing, or idea" (McCloud, 27). He goes on to say that symbols are a subcategory off icons that are more complex. He gives us the example of the cartoon and how and why it is simplified. The idea that cartoons are simplified down to their basic core appearance allows the audience to identify with the character and become one with the cartoon. He claims that by the cartoon being striped down and simple, the audience is able to identify more with the cartoon and, in a way, see ourselves in it. 

Definitions matter, right?

It might be the poor website design or the typos and grammatical errors throughout the selection of “Metaphors we live by” or maybe I just don’t completely understand it at all. Perhaps, maybe it’s my understanding of metaphors altogether, but whatever the case, I am having a hard time completely agreeing with all the examples he uses.  While I do agree with the overall idea of the selection there are some lingering doubts I have about some the meanings they propose.

Or maybe these metaphors are so deeply ingrained into me that I cannot possibly escape the use of them or even imagine doing so?

[Insert Image Here]

We have done a bit of a travel throughout these couple of assigned readings for this class. From John Locke and Derrida, we went from dissecting the meaning of words, to reconstructing language based off of one’s knowledge and connection. Now that we are approaching McCloud's “The Vocabulary of Comics” I can’t help but notice that he is eliminating words and focusing on images and icons. What a transformation indeed. His approach on tackling his main point by using a comic strip was genius! For some reason it was a lot more relatable reading his points in that manner, and understanding how he may feel as well as others based off of the images he used. 

This is Not LAW

This is Not a Pig

This is Not a Car

Metaphors We Live By

Reading this piece gave me a lot of insight on how we as individuals unconsciously use metaphors and icons. What I thought was most interesting was how the authors showed us that the metaphors we use help shape the perception of the message and depending on what metaphors we use, the perceptions of the same message can come off as totally different. Thinking of marriage as a "contract agreement," for example, leads to one set of expectations, while thinking of it as "teamplay," "a negotiated settlement," "Russian roulette," "an indissoluble merger," or "a religious sacrament" will carry different sets of expectations.” (Lakoff and Johnson) I feel that this is a perfect example of the message that Lakoff and Johnson were attempting to convey throughout this piece. I really enjoyed the reference of “argument is war”. It showed me that we really do live by metaphors unconsciously and that they are a vital part of our everyday lives.

Metaphors and The Icons We Live By

After interpretation of the readings, the metaphorical expressions of concepts can be juxtaposed with the categories of icons. The way that a metaphor holds ambiguous meaning is the same way that an icon holds meaning and representation. I used to think that only words carry meanings, individually also. When a word is combined with another word, the meanings also combine to form a new recognition in the minds of a reader. Metaphors construct how we understand concepts. “Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature.” (Lakoff and Johnson) What the authors mean here is that as humans, how we think and act is influenced by the metaphorical expressions of concepts. These concepts are the concepts we live by.

The Significance of Metaphor.

What Lakoff, Johnson, and McCloud wrote seemed to agree conceptually, even if they discussed two very different metaphorical approaches at communication. McCloud's comic pointed to the fact that people perceive themselves and every extension of themselves metaphorically because we have little to no sensory information being streamed to us about ourselves. When you look at someone else, all of their sensory information is being offered to you in an infinite stream (you can smell them, you can hear them, you can see their body move, all at the same time) but you aren't looking at a mirror so you can only have a vague understanding of what you probably look like.

To McCloud, that's why comics are a universally adored medium for communication; we can relate to the characters because they are simplified to the point of resembling the metaphorical image we have of ourselves. I think this fits perfectly with Lakoff and Johnson's idea that metaphorical expressions in language shape how we culturally perceive things. The language we share with our society represents the kind of culturally accepted opinions we hold.

metaphors in our minds

While examining the readings this week I saw a lot of similar ideas. Lakoff and Johnson propose some strong ideas about the use of metaphors in our daily speech and McCloud presents several parallel ideas about cartoons. Both authors offer this notion that humans prefer to dodge reality and use unrealistic ideals to portray their thoughts.

First, Lakoff and Johnson include many examples of how we use metaphors so frequently in speech that it's as if they are not metaphors, but literally mean what they are trying to portray. They present the idea that "linguistic expressions are containers for meaning." They stress that words are just words that make up sentences that without the meaning behind them would have no purpose without the preconceived notion of what they stand for. They use the example of the sentence "please sit in the apple-juice seat" and go on to explain that out of context, this sentence makes absolutely no sense and has no purpose, but once meaning is given to the words (a guest must take the seat with the only glass of apple juice) the sentence has purpose.

A Metaphoric Culture

Lakoff and Johnson's "Metaphors We Live By," argues for some very thought-provoking ideas.  Challenging the widely held belief of the use of metaphor strictly in language.  The idea that metaphors are embedding in our thought processes is an important and intriguing one.  I seek to back up their argument by emphasizing the fact that our language is culturally bound with the inclusion of metaphorical concepts.

They say, "Our concepts structure what we perceive, how we get around in the world, and how we relate to other people" (Lakoff & Johnson).  Perception is reality so our concepts become our truths.  Since the conceptual system largely contains metaphors, the use of metaphors are no longer restricted to just language.  Instead they become a part of living each and every day.  An important distinction to make is the unconscious aspect of the conceptual system.  Most of our decisions we make are automatic and are done without deliberation.  So these metaphors become embedded in these automatic decisions.

Metaphors & Asking Hard Questions

Our readings this weekend have brought into question the signification of our language’s symbols and icons. Lakoff & Johnson’s piece, “Metaphors We Live By,” argues that cultures add meaning to basic, but abstract concepts (like time) through metaphor in order for them to be more approachable. In doing so, those metaphors become so engrained and super-glued to those concepts in our language to the point where it is almost impossible to separate them. McCloud, in his “Understanding Comics,” presents to us how the simplified cartoon affects our perception of it, allowing us to focus more on the concept or the story being told instead of the character’s individuality. McCloud claims that we “extend our identities” into an image of a cartoon and fill the simplicity of it with ourselves (McCloud 36-39). 

I'm faced with a few difficult questions. 

In regards to Lakoff & Johnson: since one’s understanding of many concepts is deeply rooted in the use of metaphor, is it possible for one to break away from that line of thought entirely, or to adopt another conceptual metaphor? For example, can one who spends 30 years understanding “Argument is War” ever fully understand the conceptual metaphor of “Argument is a dance”? Or, if I try to immerse myself into the pursuit of understanding entirely and internally that “Argument is dance,” will I ever succeed? Do our initial culture’s conceptual metaphors have the most authority in our minds at all times? 

Metaphors: A Beautiful Nuisance

I definitely understood most and agreed with “Metaphors We Live By” by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. Lakoff and Johnson define a metaphor as a “device of the poetic imagination and the rhetorical flourish - - a matter of extraordinary rather than ordinary language.” They claim that metaphors don’t only simply make our language more brilliant and stimulating, but they also shape the way we think and understand terms, concepts, even life.

This article is definitely in conflict with John Locke’s “An Essay on Human Understanding.” Locke claimed that while, yes, metaphors make language more beautiful and poetic and attention-grabbing, it simply complicates language; no one can ever truly know exactly what you are talking about, and it only complicates future uses of that word.

What I got from reading McCloud, Lakoff, and Johnson.

The readings we have been going over this past week all have something to do with language and the symbols/ideas that go along with language. This week's readings raised something new to question, the ties/associations people and cultures put on images/symbols. In McCloud's reading, "The Vocabulary Of Comics", McCloud argues that a simplified cartoon does not distract us from the concept of the story as much as an embellished one would. In other terms, the lack of individuality of a cartoon is directly related to the ability to understand the story's concept/main idea. Then on the other hand we have Lakoff and Johnson's reading, "Metaphors We Live By", states that cultures and people add meaning to difficult and abstract ideas in order to make them more approachable and understandable. This concept about language also argues that these meanings and feelings we add to difficult ideas then becomes so intertwined with the idea that it is hard to then separate them from the meaning we have put upon them.

Information Age

Different icons of the Information Age brought to light several concepts and questions for me. The idea that our faces are not actually a direct representation of who we are is a strange idea in my mind. What if our idea of ourselves is totally different than the way others see us? The idea that we have a different masks depending on the situation is very true as well. The image and profile an individual creates on the Internet could be vastly different from the way individuals are in the flesh. The concept of the car was interesting and really but everything into perspective of how the individual doesn’t truly acknowledge the surroundings and the whole entities of existence. How often I take for granted the use of a car or the use of a computer, two things that are so complex and intricate. Even a pencil, which seems like a minute invention, had to have taken an intelligent person to create for the time. The information age has become so diluted because of the advancements and the multitude of technology.

McCloud, Scott. “The Vocabulary of Comics.” In Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. New York: Harper Collins, 1994. 24-45.

Icons in the Information Age

Reading McCloud's piece about icons and representations made me wonder how much different the piece would have been if it had been written today.  He talks about how our faces are masks that do not actually represent our personalities since they exist in the conceptual realm.  Obviously this problem compounds today.  Not only are our faces masks but the faces that we create online have become another layer of intentional misrepresentation.  This becomes even more interesting when you consider his example about the internalization of a car.  He says, "When driving, for example, we experience much more than the five senses report.  The whole car - not just the parts we can see, feel and hear - is very much on our minds at all times.  The vehicle becomes an extension of our body. It absorbs our sense of identity.  We become the car" (McCloud 38).