Hello Everyone,
 
  I lost my first blog somewhere.  It now floats out somewhere in the blogosphere, where all good blogs go when they die.  Or maybe I have it saved.  In any event, I am going to reconcile the way I thought I should blog to the format that Bill asked us to follow in his instructions to make our responses  "seamless".  Hey, look, another metaphor, and I didn't even notice it till now!  Initially, I was going to draw up some discussion questions, then do a wrap-up blog tomorrow.  Maybe I'll still do that.  But right now, I want to present some questions that I think will be good for the class, and a little context, and add some of my own insights too.  We'll see how it goes.  Let's hope I meet all of the parameters of the assignment.  So, this is a good experience for all of us.  Maybe the blog will be fine.  Maybe my blog set-up will be off base, and everyone can learn from me.  And we're off!

1.  In the past, I believed that language was by itself neutral.  I believed that it was simply a tool used to communicate information.  My view today is more complex.  While I believe that language can be neutral, it normally is not.  And I no longer believe that language is neutral by default.  Lakoff and Johnson say (67, 68), that:
    "The three structural metaphors we have considered in this section-- RATIONAL ARGUMENT IS WAR, LABOR IS A RESOURCE, and TIME IS A RESOURCE-- all have a strong cultural basis.  They emerged naturally in a culture like ours because what they highlight corresponds so closely to what we experience collectively and what they hide corresponds to so little."  How has this statement influenced your own views of the potentially biased nature of language?

2.  Even the way we write ( from left to right in Western languages and right to left in other parts of the world) and think about writing (following a linear, sequential order) is socially constructed.  Lakoff and Johnson explain (127): "Since speaking is correlated with time and time is metaphorically conceptualized in terms of space, it is natural for us to conceptualize language metaphorically in terms of space...Writing a sentence down allows us to conceptualize it even more readily as a spatial object with words in a linear order."  How can our reliance on metaphors shape our writing in surprising ways?

3.  We come across texts of all types and with greater frequency all the time.  We are bombarded with written and oral texts.  We see advertisements and hear speeches.  We listen to music, play games, and watch television.  With this "sea" (metaphor added for your enjoyment) of information flooding over us, how might this book help us out as students, teachers, and workers?

4.  One metaphor that sticks out in my mind is mentioned on page 134, the INSTRUMENT IS A COMPANION METAPHOR.  The authors claim that many people refer to instruments as if they are companions.  This is true from childhood to adulthood.  Now, if metaphors have shaped language and culture so radically, might it stand to reason  that metaphors like these may contribute to materialism in US culture?  How could this be a possibility?  Why couldn't this metaphor or ones like it have similar effects?

5. Lakoff and Johnson cite one of the "Myths of Objectivism as being that (187), "Words have fixed meanings."  This was really surprising when I first heard it, but it makes sense, especially after reading the earlier parts of the book.  If words don't have fixed meanings, how can we be sure were all on the same page, as it were?  See, another metaphor.  Seriously, though, what can we learn from this principle that words do not have fixed meanings?

The text did a nice job of making this topic highly accessible.  It was a good read to get us back in the swing of things.  Was that a baseball metaphor?  This book has helped me think about language in a more critical light.  Language is not the benign, malevolent  (EDIT: I meant "benevolent".) force I thought it was.  It also isn't bad either.  Instead, I believe that language is merely an outgrowth of its social context.  The authors brought me some much needed clarity to this aspect of knowledge management. 

  I avoided the section where the authors compare and contrast objectivist vs subjectivist views.  I did this not because I didn't read that far in the book (I read to page 250, actually), but because I didn't want to get tangled up in the whole absolute truth discussion.  If anyone else wants to bring it up, feel free.  There also some religious implications here that could get us off track.  I didn't want to go there, either.  I endeavored to bring up questions that would generate good discussion.  I did not want questions like "is this true or not?" for obvious reasons.  I also don't like agree/disagree questions very much.  I don't think they're too helpful.  Questions of how and why are generally more fruitful in graduate classes from what I've seen. 
 
 If anyone finds anything that I've written to be unclear, let me know via twitter, and I'll try to  clear it up. 


Joe
ias#09

Metaphors We Live By is an interesting, thought provoking book that explores the relatively basic idea that human beings prefer to share knowledge by using ideas with which they are already familiar. In doing this they can create new concepts, give more meaning to their language, etc. The human mind is believed to categorize new thoughts and experiences as related to other more familiar ones, which goes a long way to explaining why we tend to find metaphors useful.

 In Metaphors We Live By the author’s ask why and how civilizations create and utilize these metaphors to express concepts we now take as common sense.   The book provides many examples of how people talk in metaphors without even realizing it. Beyond that, the authors explain that the human thought process itself is metaphorical.  They explore these metaphorical concepts by looking closely at metaphorical language. Lakoff and Johnson provide the reader with many examples of how we talk, conceptualize and reason in metaphors; argument is war (Lakoff 4), time is money (lakoff 7), happy rational and more are up (Lakoff 15), the mind is brittle (Lakoff 28), inflation is an adversary (Lakoff 34), love is a physical force (Lakoff 49), etc. The authors admit to not having significant information about the experimental bases for these metaphors.  However, they do explain that because of metaphors when people communicate who do not share the same culture, knowledge, values, and assumptions, mutual understanding can be difficult (Lakoff 231) This is because people experience life in a way that our culture is already present in the very experience itself. (Lakoff 57)

The book continues into discussions about what is truth and how you define it.  The authors argue that metaphors are more than just linguistic expressions and while they may not directly state objective absolute truths they do state truth. (Lakoff 159) To promote this they provide examples of how humans understand a sentence as being truth and that in order to understand a sentence in this way we must comprehend the separate ideas as relative to certain larger categories of experience. (Lakoff 167)  Understanding metaphors as truth only differs in that we must understand one thing in terms of another. (Lakoff 171)

One area that I believe that the book is less convincing is in relating metaphor to the myths of objectivism, subjectivism and now experientialism.  This may be simplified (or perhaps over simplified) to state that objectivism believes in absolute truth and the external world, where as subjectivism believes that you can make the world in your own image (Lakoff 185) and that meaning means something “to” a person.  (Lakoff 227)  However, the authors state that both of these theories miss on how humans understand the world which is though our interactions with it. (Lakoff 194) Objectivism does not account for the fact that understanding is necessarily relative to our cultural conceptual systems which is metaphorical in nature and subjectivism does not account for that even imaginative understanding is given in terms of a conceptual system that is grounded in our physical and cultural environment. (Lakoff 194)  With experientialism, understanding

Overall, I found the book to be enlightening. I had not thought of metaphor as influencing thought and action but as a flourish of language (that in many cases we try to avoid).  I was also (and I am ashamed to admit this) not aware of how pervasive metaphors are.  I thoroughly enjoyed the author’s energy in trying to persuade the reader of how important this knowledge actually is.  However the fact that the fallacies about metaphor have implications for all aspects of our lives, including war and peace, the environment, health, and other political and social issues maybe a little melodramatic. (Lakoff 246)

In Metaphors We Live By, the authors guide the readers through the idea that metaphorical concepts are found in more places than most people think. Furthermore, even though a metaphor is a literary device, the idea that something is figuratively compared to another thing is at the core of the structure of language itself
I agree with the message of this book and the more I read it, the more I began to see that metaphors have worked their way into almost every phrase that is used. For example, in the last sentence, I wrote, "metaphors have worked their way into...". By associating metaphors with a being, I was able to illustrate a thought without having to complicate things. Metaphors are not alive, they can not work themselves anywhere, a person needs to use them, but that is implied.

This kind of thought process began more and more while I was reading the book. I had to stop my brain from going down the rabbithole, but hopefully I continue to be aware of my unconcious use of metaphorical concepts.

A point that the authors again and again us that metaphors come from the culture that the language developed in, different cultures have different concepts. Looking back, I find this very true.

When talking to people from other countries, I have found that even if they are well versed in English, the one thing they seem to have trouble learning over all others is  common phrases, such as "what's up?" or "whatever floats your boat”. After reading this book I know that the reason phrases like this are littered with metaphorical concepts. A dvd of the British version of The Office that I bought came with a phrase-book for Americans.  Even speaking the same language, when there is a cultural divide, new references emerge that are taken for granted to those who use them all the time.

All humans need comparison to express what they are thinking. I think the best example of how metaphorical concepts can be taken for granted in language is Dr. Spock from Star Trek.  Although he spoke English, Spock was an alien from a radically different culture and the writers of the show were very much aware of this. Since his culture was based on Logic, Spock had immense trouble understanding common “earth-sayings”.  Through a logical eye like Spock, if someone says “time is money”, they literally think time is a form of currency.

With the internet expanding the audience of our creations far beyond where they used to be distributed, we are entering a “new frontier” in communication.  Although it is doubtful that vulcans are reading our twitter posts (although one can dream), people from very different backgrounds and cultures are.  Being aware of all sides of a message before it is sent out into the wild is more important than ever.

I actually found the book a bit repetitive.  Although I haven't decided if it is because I had prior knowledge of how language shapes are conception of reality or the structure of the book itself.

The combination of personal experience with language and college experience led to my prior knowledge of some of the issues brought up in the text. 

I have had experience with cognitive behavioral therapy.  For those who don't know, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a type of psychotherapy whereby the patient firsts lists the moods they wish to change.  Then, the patient lists all the thoughts they feel contributed toward that mood.  These thoughts are most likely negative.  (Granted, negative is ambiguous and subjective when applied in group setting, but if you are a psychotherapist, the patient is coming to see you to change how they feel.  They are likely to label whatever they are feeling as negative; it gives them the choice of what to label as positive or negative.  This is the brilliance of CBT.  It teaches the patient the tools necessary to fix negative emotions which have been hindering their progress toward whatever goals they wish.)  Next, the patient then rewrites the negative thought into a more rational, positive thought.  Both thoughts are true, however, it is our interpretation of the incidents in our past that is the basis of who we are.  Gradually, the patient forms more positive thoughts about themselves and higher self-esteem.

I have come across similar ways to use language to shape reality in my college courses. 

It felt reading the text that the author could have listed his theory of why metaphors shape our reality, and proved it.  Then he could have listed some metaphors and taught the reader how to dissect language to find the metaphorical concept like "life is a journey" in whatever language the reader comes across.  I felt like the author didn't do that; his objective was to list every metaphor we live by and prove his thesis again and again with each one.  Considering there are seven billion people in the world, I felt this goal impossible.  While it is true there are metaphors we all share relative to our culture and our physical orientation to the world, each person is different and unique.  I accept that language shapes our reality, and given these two theories (each person is different and unique and language shapes our reality); I believe it is our experience with language, how we interpret our experience using language that makes each one of us unique.

Hopefully, this is the type of response our group is looking for. 

Chris