On 7/16/25 9:43 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> I think we are using 'metaphor' in an inconsistent fashion.
> 
> My viewpoint begins with W. V. O. Quine:
> 
> /"Along the philosophical fringes of science, reasons may be found to question basic conceptual structures and to search for ways to reshape them. Old idioms are bound to fail, and only metaphor can begin to limn the new order"/
> 
> Then add McCormac's "lifecycle."  First is the *epiphor, *e.g., an atom is like a solar system, nucleus and orbiting electrons.
> 
> The familiar side of this relation suggests referents/aspects that can be looked for on the unfamiliar side.
> 
> If these referents/aspects are confirmed the paraphor evolves to be a lexical term.
> 
> If they are not confirmed, the metaphor becomes a dead metaphor and is discarded.
> 
> There are some special cases: the Bohr model of an atom as solar system, persists, not because referents/aspects are confirmed on both sides—quite the opposit—but because it is a useful tool for teaching elementary chemistry.
> 
> In my CS Masters Thesis and first professional publication, I coined the term, paraphor for a metaphor—specifically the brain-computer / computer-brain metaphor—where the referents are consistently contradicted but the metaphor persists because it fits a prevailing paradigm of thought about the subject area.
> 
> I am sympathetic to the assertion by Nick, et. al., "that it is all metaphor." but on very different grounds. In my case the "all is illusion" and antipathy to the verb to be.
> 
> davew

