On 7/16/25 10:10 AM, glen wrote:
> OK. I kinda appreciate the attempt at a typology ... like the ontology trees rooted in "thing". It doesn't give me any sense of what y'all would admit is *not* a metaphor (or any conjugate or qualified version of it). At the very least, we could resort to something like semiotics where, given 1 triad, we can say things like "in this triad, the sign is not the object and the interpretant is not the sign and the object is not the interpretant". I mean, that's not very satisfying. But it would be better.
> 
> Another fix would be to identify if "metaphor" is really a usage mode, not an ontological property. Then we could say things like "left-brain" is being *used* as a metaphor for System 2. A role is a different thing from a thing playing a role. We could form other types of sentence that way, too, like "this coffee mug is being used as a rock" or "think of this coil of wire as if it were bookshelf".
> 
> Another thing that would help me is to draw a detailed distinction between a metaphor and an analogy. I've got a rich conceptual structure around analogies. But the way the token "metaphor" is used seems hopelessly sloppy to me.
> 
> But to start, it would be useful to get a couple of lists: 1) things that are not metaphors and 2) things that are metaphors. If we can't even do that, then it is truly hopeless and I'll continue avoiding the token and suspecting those who use it of bad faith.

