Crying out for meaning....

I have been drawn recently to reappraise the use of metaphor not in a metaphrological manner, but rather in its ability to be perceived as designed by the issuer, especially as my use of nursery rhyme in my last article meant that to many readers the "dish did run away with the spoon" and the message lost as people focused too much on the allegory.

The ability to perceive meaning in metaphor is an important attribute of an aligned perspective. Required if we are to move beyond a metaphor to a dynamic process that enables actors to interrelate towards such aspirations and so affect source domains.

For some more than others it is important to ensure that the symbols and metaphors used are clearly and readily deciphered. Inter-relational complexity can lead to ideas being misunderstood and often misrepresented.(Freud, Marx, Foucault)

Privileging one dimension over others when interpreting metaphor often only obfuscates the real intention of creating the metaphor and leads to the interpreter often misjudging the role of other factors or their interrelation.

The need for a metaphor to be culturally shared and closely understood by the actors and activists involved is also a required prerequisite.As it is only in this manner that metaphor has any pedagogical or persuasive usefulness.

A metaphor must come from ones own experiences and must be readily interpreted by the listener. Something that is known to you, or has been experienced by yourself, but not by the listener, will not be readily as meaningful to the listener. As metaphors are an individuals recognition or results felt to be contingent, based on historical or cultural symbols means that without those references or the elucidatory narrative of the issuer can have no meaning in themselves.

As culture is changing and domains realigned metaphors become less sui generis or culturally specific and so more aspirational and generic, with a danger of a move towards a need to avoid them totally and be literal

(This move toward the literal is discussed in a further www.elucidate-erudite blog article, on empathic iconoclasm and its effect on the services provided by Business and Governments to their customers and voters. )

The difference between metaphor and extension is important.

As a metaphor, shows that the issuer, is in control of their perception.

They are aware that the metaphor is symbolic of a reality.

An extension shows a desperate lack of control by the issuer of a reality and a wish for the perceived reality to be different.

In such a manner it betrays the desires and lack of comfort of the issuer. A reflected negation of present order based on an assertion of past ways were better or past values more valued, is itself at once regressive and a cry for a new order tomorrow. However as it is rooted in assertion can only ever be contingently valid.

As what is out there as comprehended is not as it should be and so as it should be is communicated through metaphoric over-extension. Often in these cases the issuer has difficulty explaining the meaning of their extension, as its reasoning upon, at once betrays its innumerable absurdities.

The use of extension has been used precisely because the issuer feels discomfort and cannot explain literally what change they require to feel comfortable again.

Often when using symbols and metaphors it is important to understand the ability of your intended audience to perceive your use of the abstract or intention to ascribe a different meaning to an established symbol.

Many children today would not understand what the black lumpy plastic found on the back of Thomas the Tank engine replicas is meant to represent.

Without knowledge of coal and what coal is used for, as well as why it would be found on a steam train, and that the character of Thomas is meant to represent a steam train.

The black lumpy plastic becomes a part of the body of the character of Thomas when in inception it was merely a separate entity, carried by the steam engine as fuel.

The idea of civility as a metaphor for well-being or efficiency or economic revival is a tenuous one. This is often used by politicians to explain why crime rates are high or the economy is not growing as it should be.

The meaning derived is that if we were more civil as a society crime would fall, employment would rise and society could be fairer.

This supposition is one many feel they can subscribe to. The opposite that proves the rule being that in totalitarian countries people are not treat fairly and do not have the liberal freedom of others who live under more democratic governmental systems.

The conflated presumption being that things will only get better if more power is given to people in an inspirational way, so that they can themselves engineer a better society for all. The machinations of society and public policy creation, the concept of finite resources and opportunity cost decision making is ignored.

It ignores the inter-relatedness of all factors that must be considered when deciding social policy. It presents social cohesion as a solvable straightforward issue that with the will of the people themselves will occur.

It creates a perspective amongst activists for a "civil society" that those who don’t work with them are against them and their understanding of what is civil. It ignores "tolerating" and claims through ideation of such activists a ahistorical and aspirational standard that must be adhered to.

This will ensure movement from the present to the perceived target domain of civility for all within a perceived society. The process of interpretation of the metaphor giving it a dynamic and transformative power and the record of its transformative endeavour in turn historicises it and so gives it a sense of semblance with a scientific validity where in reality it has in itself as a notion, none.

The idea of a civil fairer society is not subject to scrutiny over its implementation but accepted as an idealised cognition. The use of metaphor here can be dangerously wielded as if what is envisioned or asserted occurs and similarity then can be substantiated, its attraction to many increases. The phrase "The night of the long knives" was not used by the SS to plan that night of political assassinations, nor was it in general use in Germany at that time, but has been assigned and is validated by those events so that now it is even used to describe any reshuffle of political authority.

This target domain has no historical reference, but is referenced as if it has existed previously. It is metaphoric but is accepted not as metaphor by audiences but as something that is achievable with will and freedom.

Speaking "Klingon" as many fans of the TV show "Star Trek" have done, does not give the language validity. Charting the edification of learners of Klingon and struggles to promote the language neither. But to the actors involved it does provide a sense that the language has validity comparable to English or Greek and it is in this way that the dynamic process of efforts to transform domains is maintained.

The meaning attributed to metaphors then is sometimes earned and other times ascribed through experience or at inception. The idea that shapeless clothing confers a humility is something that is socially conferred and so such meaning is subject to re-interpretation and movement.

The emblems of sports car manufacturers were not in themselves intrinsically meaningful but have come to convey meaning through experience of others.

In this way symbols have in themselves become metaphoric and more importantly their intended meaning lost to many, who fail to see why shapeless clothing should be indicative of humility or why the double R logo is held in such high regard.

Should one revisit symbols and metaphors and alter them as their social meaning changes? This does occur and symbols mean different things to different audiences. 

The hijab is symbolic but has an ascribed meaning and that meaning is apparently derived divinely and so is not open to reinterpretation. It is also practical given the terrain of deserts and climate however this meaning has been lost to those not accustomed to the benefits of dark colored clothing and sandstorm winds.

This means that such symbolism and inferred meaning is lost to many and those who subscribe to the metaphor intended must persist with such symbolism despite its loss of influence and even additional meaning earned or ascribed by others not familiar with such cultural meanings.

Passing the port to the left, not eating pork, chilling Beaujolais are all behaviour that held meaning once but now are continued because of tradition without a clear reference to the reason why.

Wearing shapeless clothing and paying more for a Jaguar car than another car is continued despite its intended rationale being lost to such a point that people will pay more for a Ferrari Key-ring chain continue to wear a burqa  and not know why; its fixity having changed as domains change.

The concept of a good and fair society is also open to interpretation with citizens of Iran supporting the removal of the Shah in order to bring fairness and goodness as defined by the ayatollah back, now feeling that goodness and fairness is again required and that the ayatollahs understanding is not in line with theirs.


 Citizens of Egypt as well have reminisced in coffee shops about the days before the revolution and the sense of loss of pride that socialism brought.

Whist others sit in coffee shops in Russia berating the movement towards a more democratic capitalistic society and hanker for a return to the totalitarian security afforded through communism. Civility not always what we may have meant in the past and amongst certain groups in the West in the way we rationalise the use of resources and attribute value to behaviour.

What is inferred by symbols and so metaphor is constantly open to reinterpretation but whereas modern corporations can change their logos to reflect these changes in perception other people and other organisations feel unable to tamper with customs, symbols and metaphor.

This in turn means it is harder to use phrases like "big society" and expect a community to emerge that truly is in sync with its intended meaning.

Though there may well be an acknowledgement of similarity,( similarity is still used incorrectly  as a benchmark for truth), there are fundamental differences of inference. It is in the activists or subscriber's expression of how to achieve a big society that conflict will occur.

The role of the state in the maintenance of the metaphoric extension is interesting as it does not lessen.The state then will take the role of arbiter and supporter of those involved in their pursuit of happiness. Big society then requires a bigger government to resource and facilitate the dynamic.

Institutions are created and/or reformed and laws passed to ensure that movement as pushed for and jostled over by activists are maintained. The call here is for metaphor-free argument, a scientific language, fixated on  the desire for literal definiteness that will result in an environment where thoughts are clearer and distinct as the ignes fatui and ones attempt at grasping intention and meaning from phrases and words is removed, leaving only the conveyance of precisely understood notions of things.

This in itself can lead to innumerable conclusions but as metaphor is in itself irrational, the outcomes from its use will irreducibly lead to one of three outcomes: Contention at the perceived outcome as it is seen to be in-line with aspirations and similar enough to claim achievement, or sedition as goal-posts are changed or definitions changed, or changes forced or finally contempt for the issuer of the extension which will take a generation to resolve and further reduce trust in those who promulgate. Rhetoric will invalidate itself as unless it is substantiated by historical outcome it has no legitimate foundation from which to support "hope"

Next article: Emphatic Iconoclasm and its effect on the perceived value of aspirational extensions amongst  voters and consumers and a look at the changing role of Government and Business as they move toward the literal.

Other issues: Truth and Lies in a literal world, Comedy, literature and art v. literal consciousness, Religion and Light.

Less like Humpty - a comment on social policy initiatives

One of the many reasons for riding an elephant in the Western Ghats of India is its proven effectiveness in protecting those astride against injury or death should a tiger attack.

We should, it may be posited not be unduly burdening or exploiting, directing such an elephant in Islington, because we have been told there may be tigers, given the terrain, given previous encounters in India, given the riders beliefs and even given the riders logically derived conclusions. Only "seeing" is and can ever be really worth the while.

Being forearmed is not at once arelevant, or an efficient reason for the directed use of public resources, especially if based on forewarning without fact.

In summary then it is better to have seen the tiger than claim the existence of tigers. In almost all cases one would agree that seeing a tiger is better for all excusing the tiger itself.

With evidence-based policy making we move away from "proselytizing prophets and visionaries" to proselytizing that which is fact.

We also move away from espousing logicians who proselytize based on their logical inferences.

Colonial traces still echo in the rationales provided for assumption-led policy making.

Our notion that the "brain leads" is reflected in the symbolism and structures we have designed.

The idea that an appreciation of fact means one must derive extrapolated assumptions or that one can use such evidence to support beliefs and attributions at once installs obstacles and occludes the arguably main purpose of societal governance namely the efficient direction of resources based on "what is proven to work best"

This view of knowledge as validating of assumption, a provider of cause and espoused effect, is one we must move away from.

The use of belief, attribution, values and norms in decision making must not be permitted to hold equal weight in discourse.

Of course this piece is aware of the assumption that facts are everlasting, that all will subscribe to one domain of knowledge and see it from the same angle, understanding and value at once everything the same.

Those who are mentioned above who sit on these beliefs, prophecies, derived and attributed facts are it appears prevalent and active in policy formulation today.

Rather like Humpty Dumpty, they are able to maintain a stable position atop, whilst their position is only as strong as the wall beneath.

All too often scrutiny of such walls reveals part of its foundation is belief masquerading as fact, some facts are attributed to support beliefs, some facts are related but others and their connexity are disputable or misaligned

So much like when one strips back the plaster façade, the structural integrity of what is the base is unstable. Humpty comes crashing down and such a construct is difficult to rebuild in the same way.

Others who have sat in this position have reached "dizzy heights" by proclaiming without fact then asking that the wall be built beneath them. Sometimes the facts emerge to support the proclamations other times the proclaimer must walk on water alone.

The absence or removal of further judgement, as reason for allocation or organisation, of capital is a reasonable request.

Judgement having then the singular purpose of feeding and so providing impetus for further and or additional research.

The removal of "claims" of "beliefs" of assumptive fatalistic conclusions which then search for validation and commission, attribute "bricks" on which to rest will cease to be seen as a rational method of advancing living standards through the appropriation of resources.

The bricks we use and the constructs we design, align are and should be self defining in that they shape "what is best" by their inherent validity and fit. Perfect knowledge of all research and their hermeneutic outcomes will also need to be inherent, implying the use of and access to such information would have to be permitted.

How we make links between facts and the method for its construction should be the role of Government.

Instead now, Government is more the managerial "cement" and less like the assumptive Humpty.

Then like "Cheops" we should also be willing to rebuild from a common base and tried and tested stages should society not be operating in a manner that works best by measure.

A glance of recognition at political and libertarian nihilistic approaches to how society is governed must be addressed at this stage but will be further discussed at a later date especially as the negation of "knowing" lies at the heart of this construct too.

This negation of absolute knowledge is the driver of this approach although this may not be at once obvious. It is when we assume to know that it argues difficulties have arisen. This piece is less essentialist and more argument at this stage.

This idea of the quiddity of "best for society" of course rest consciously on the idea that society exists without government, and "the best for society" can be agreed.

Policy would not engage in "vision" only "knowing" then "doing" then "validating" in a circular frame, where neither are ascribed greater importance.