The Shape, Size, and Place of Metaphor

          The last portion of Metaphors helped many of Lakoff and Johnson’s ideas come full-circle, but not without a struggle.  I noticed the authors seem to have a tendency to finish explaining earlier concepts during the introduction of their next set.  I get a grip on one thing they’re saying and then they throw in another.  Metaphors was a fast-paced book, nevertheless a thought-provoking read.

            Lakoff and Johnson’s comparison between metaphorical and nonmetaphorical projection was delicate and took me a few reads to fully grasp.  The text reads, “[t]he only difference is that metaphorical projection involves understanding one kind of thing in terms of another kind of thing.  That is, metaphorical projection involves two different kinds of things, while nonmetaphorical projection involves only one kind” (171).  Understanding is had in any number of ways, but it is really up to our slew of experiences to have something to compare that which we are trying to understand to.  Considering we are nearing the end of the semester (and college for some of us), I started to think about dead week in terms of these projections—partly because it is really finals week for the majority of English majors.  If I’m correct, dead week would have to be an example of metaphorical projection because the busy lifelessness of perhaps the most stressful week of the semester is being compared to a zombie-like state of still moving forward, not quite dead.  One thing is known in terms of another, whereas finals got harder only compares previous tests or papers to the current ones.  I like this disparity, but it gets me thinking about different categories, where the lines are drawn, and who is holding the marker.  These projections are all pretty vague, and though I’m not sure I completely understand them, it makes sense in consideration of the levels of metaphor.

            The conversation regarding objectivity and subjectivity brought back painful memories of secondary school where the assignment was to write about the same topic through each mindset.  The assignments went on forever and their differences are engrained into my mind (which was probably the point).  Never, however, did we delve so far into their meaning as Lakoff and Johnson do in the last portion of their book.  The text reads, “[t]hey coexist, but in separate domains.  Each of us has a realm in his life where it is appropriate to be objective and a realm where it is appropriate to be subjective” (189).  It’s true both objectivity and subjectivity would be better employed in many of each their own certain circumstances, but it’s implausible to think they can be so easily separated—a reason why I dreaded those early assignments.  Take the previous quote for example.  The authors’ use of the masculine his to describe people in general may be used for a number of reasons.  It could be because they are both male authors, because they are chauvinistic, because this is a traditional form of usage and writing, because it just flows better, and others.  I doubt they believe men are superior to women, but one’s subjective thought process may lead some to believe that.  Objectively, it’s just one way to write.  The point being, reading that sentence, one’s interpretation can be both objective and subjective without even thinking about it.  The authors are right to imply they coexist, and those who think they can be separated need to get a clue.  The text reads, “[t]ruth is always relative to understanding, which is based on a nonuniversal conceptual system. […] The objectivist emphasis on achieving a universally valid point of view misses what is important, insightful, and coherent for the individual” (226-7).  It’s a matter of checks and balances and both subjectivity and objectivity are required to form an accurate thought, idea, or opinion.

          In this lengthy discussion of metaphor and what it means for our daily lives, Lakoff and Johnson conclude, “[…] metaphor is not merely a matter of language.  It is a matter of conceptual structure.  And conceptual structure is not merely a matter of the intellect—it involves all the natural dimensions of our experience, including aspects of our sense experiences:  color, shape, texture, sound, etc.  These dimensions structure not only mundane experience but aesthetic experience as well” (235).  I was glad Lakoff and Johnson kept the idea throughout the book that language was but only a carrier of metaphor, a way to communicate between one another, but not the primary means behind metaphor.  Experiences truly shape us and what better than a metaphor to account for that shaping?