Is anything not a metaphor?

During my walk today, a thought randomly manifested about metaphors. The thought began as the idea of money being a metaphor for the work that earned it (it represents what resulted in its presence), then extended to the idea of language, words being metaphors for ideas. Then the thought of the stories and figures of a religion being a metaphor for a belief or perception about the world. After, I thought about something I heard in an Alan Watts lecture about "physical objects" in the world simply being metaphors for different points of energy around us, metaphors that our minds simply create to comprehend this energy or happening.

So I began asking myself, is there anything in existence that is not a metaphor for that which its a result of?

If colors are metaphors for simply different wavelengths of light, and sound only a metaphor for different patterns of disturbances of energy or vibration in the air, and touch only a metaphor for what happens when the brain transmits our nerves being triggered, emotions simply being metaphors for our perceptions of a moment... is there anything that is Not a metaphor in this way?

I think you're confusing the two concepts of metaphors being "symbols" to other things, and metaphors being "extensions" of other things.

A metaphor is basically always a "symbol" of other things. You could make the metaphor that "color is the wind" or (as you have said,) "color is a metaphor for wavelengths." Both are symbolic, even though the first isn't really factual.

A metaphor is only sometimes an "extension" of other things. So, as you have said,

money being a metaphor for the work that earned it (it represents what resulted in its presence), then extended to the idea of language, words being metaphors for ideas. Then the thought of the stories and figures of a religion being a metaphor for a belief or perception about the world. After, I thought about something I heard in an Alan Watts lecture about "physical objects" in the world simply being metaphors for different points of energy around us, metaphors that our minds simply create to comprehend this energy or happening....If colors are metaphors for simply different wavelengths of light, and sound only a metaphor for different patterns of disturbances of energy or vibration in the air, and touch only a metaphor for what happens when the brain transmits our nerves being triggered, emotions simply being metaphors for our perceptions of a moment... is there anything that is Not a metaphor in this way?

, you are thinking of defining metaphors as extensions of other things, when that isn't always true.

For example, as I have said, you could make up the metaphor that "color is the wind". However, upon examination of this metaphor, you would find that "color" and "wind" are not at all related, and they aren't "extensions" of one another in any way.

So while all metaphors are symbolic, not all of them are building blocks from other things.

Everything you know is a metaphor in the sense that all you know is what you have experienced... and what you have experienced is merely a perception of yourself and your surroundings...

Proteus wrote: So I began asking myself, is there anything in existence that is not a metaphor for that which its a result of?

If colors are metaphors for simply different wavelengths of light, and sound only a metaphor for different patterns of disturbances of energy or vibration in the air, and touch only a metaphor for what happens when the brain transmits our nerves being triggered, emotions simply being metaphors for our perceptions of a moment... is there anything that is Not a metaphor in this way?

Things might have to be accepted as a metaphor for them to operate in that way -but yes, I would say we can ascribe values to things and associate patterns to justifying somethings metaphorical nature beyond that which created it, or otherwise is connected to it beyond observation. Is that what you mean!?

What I mean is... Akkarin's "pen explanation" for example - if you see a pen and you ask him "what is this", and instead of saying the word "pen" to tell you what it is, he instead shows you what it does to show you what it is, because the word "pen" is just a metaphor to represent the pen, and the object of the pen itself has no meaning or value without the function of it, therefore, the object of the pen is only a metaphor for its function. When you see the pen, you know what it does only because you recognize the image of the pen, and when you see the image of the pen, it is associated with its function. The image of the pen, therefore is simply a metaphor for what you know its function or purpose is.

Does that make any more sense?

I guess the topic is a bit vague, because of its metaphysical nature perhaps. But its just an idea that I'm playing with really.

Brilliant question, We can ask ourselves very similar questions about our own existence. We are aware we exist, but not where we came from. For all we know, we are all little Sim creatures being controlled in an online universe that has already been programmed by its creators. Yet those creators are also playing in a sick little game of chess as well. This goes on in an infinite cycle of different little chess games. However, they are the ones that have created the constraints to our universe. Thus, if this theroy did exist, our scope of thinking is technically further constrained, along with our knowledge.

Now, to dive into this connundrum, and to tie it into Jediism. I think that personally, we are too self aware and able to act of our own accord for this to be the case. We don't depend on a "user" to click on a toilet so we can go to the bathroom for example. That, and our individual actions can have such huge impacts that they are felt worldwide (depending on the scope and reason of the act.) Therefore, it's safe to say that we aren't just somebody's program on a desktop.

Yet, we are all technically interconnected by the Force. The way Joseph Campbell put it was that our body is a bulb, and the light inside it is "you" (the mind, or the soul.) So, I assume our minds would need common metaphors with which to communicate (the first being audible language.) Language is possibly the most nonsensical thing to make sense. It is so widespread, yet so different in so many places. The mind needed an outlet so it used a metaphor to apply to things in the world to create a way to get itself out to the world.

Maybe I'm just taking this thing way too far, becuase now I'm starting to get confused. But I think this theroy has a meaning to it. The mind or the "soul" has developed a path of communication so that other minds or "souls" can work in conjunction and understand one another. Therefore, the need of a language has spawned the need to create metaphors for functions. This is also known as the creation of words...

Like I said, maybe I'm just crazy, but this thing sent me down a rabbit hole.

Proteus wrote: What I mean is... Akkarin's "pen explanation" for example

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Eastern-studies/86365-Koans?limit=10&start=50#90690

I don't know where I first came across this idea (might have been Watts) but I have given it in koan form here

The Pen

Akkarin was giving a lecture to some Jedi students. He held up a pen and asked "What is this?"
"A pen!" one of the young students shouted from across the room.
"No" replied Akkarin.
That is when Proteus, who had been attending the lecture in silence, stood up and walked to the front where Akkarin was standing. He took the pen and on a piece of paper wrote one word: 'this'.

As to your original question though:

is there anything that is Not a metaphor in this way?

Where by 'way' you mean:

colors are metaphors for simply different wavelengths of light, and sound only a metaphor for different patterns of disturbances of energy or vibration in the air, and touch only a metaphor for what happens when the brain transmits our nerves being triggered, emotions simply being metaphors for our perceptions of a moment

You have presented a completely unfair question. You have said that by your way of thinking could anything not be a metaphor. Well no... by 'your' way of thinking of course anything can be considered metaphor. To accept this as true however you have to rely on the assumption that your thinking is correct in the first place. So the 'real' question is whether this way of thinking is correct...

My way of thinking, is that the "Force" is the energy or "happening" of all things. The actual idea of "Force" is not that of a thing but of a process of action, of flow, of "being", since even the word "be" is a verb and not a noun (at least in English). To "be" is a happening of itself, and whatever something is "being", to me, seems to form what I am seeing as the metaphor.

Perhaps to say that this way of thinking is incorrect may be to say that thinking of "the Force", and all it entails: the flow of things, the universe as a system and a process, is also incorrect, since what I'm explaining mirrors this if you think about it.

I know that this way of thinking may not exactly the be the most conventional, but is it incorrect? And is it really unfair?

Am I (you, every individual) simply a metaphor for the universe (or a "character that God is pretending to be" as Alan Watts describes) playing with itself, dreaming of itself, thinking about itself, etc?

Is life a metaphor for the force then?

Is life a metaphor for the force then?

Proteus, I am not discussing whether your views are right or wrong, I'm merely questioning why some aspect of a world-view that encompasses everything could be wrong

The question shouldn't be about the aspect of the view but the view itself. It shouldn't be "Can something not be a metaphor with this view?" but rather "Can everything be viewed as a metaphor?"

Does that make sense?

so then what's the metaphor for the metaphor of the metaphor metaphorically ?

:evil:

BOOM....

My head exploded ......

Metaphor-ception....

I haven't reached the alan watts books yet, but anyway...

Also, this might be a little off-topic.

Proteus wrote: My way of thinking, is that the "Force" is the energy or "happening" of all things. The actual idea of "Force" is not that of a thing but of a process of action, of flow, of "being", since even the word "be" is a verb and not a noun (at least in English). To "be" is a happening of itself, and whatever something is "being", to me, seems to form what I am seeing as the metaphor.

Perhaps to say that this way of thinking is incorrect may be to say that thinking of "the Force", and all it entails: the flow of things, the universe as a system and a process, is also incorrect, since what I'm explaining mirrors this if you think about it.

I know that this way of thinking may not exactly the be the most conventional, but is it incorrect? And is it really unfair?

Well, i agree here. I'm no expert in quantum physics, but as far as i know, even still matter, with no movement at all, is just the effect of movement. Depending on the frequency or direction of this flowing energy, we get different form of matter, such as neutrons and protons and electrons. So everything there is, and ever will be will be because there is movement.

And there is more: Movement is the cause of life at all. If there was no gravitational pull from the centres of our galaxies, no gases could be compressed enough to form stars, and, therefore, us.

So what is death, then? Stillness? because even if we die, we just move somewhere else, and the percussions of our deeds and words will someday reach the farthest edges of the universe.

So yeah, you could see the the saying "force" as a metaphor for a lot of things. Life, god, movement, flow, take your pick.

Okay ... I was just being silly earlier, right before heading home from conservatoire.

In some sense, saying that everything is a metaphor is like calling the pen a metaphor, writing with it and calling that a metaphor, saying that the perception/observation of writing with it is a metaphor and then making the whole experience a metaphor ...

... but what is it the metaphor of ? Even the metaphor is just a textual/lexical element.

It seems that ren got in a good word from an empiricist (Hume) perspective. Then there is also the phenomena/noumena slant of Kant. Watts would say that "it's just what it is" and that "nothing is like we perceive it 'out there'".

So, as I see it, everyone is as right as they can be for the moment about this. Good topic, Proteus ...

Wooo, this discussion is getting me pumped!

I suppose if energy can be projected as a wave and a particle at the same time, it stands to reason that something can be a symbol and a metaphor and an oreo cookie all at the same time, even collapsing the scope of that set of parallel existences into one of those things that excludes the others until it decides to be both one of those things exclusively and all of those things at the same time.

Akkarin wrote: Proteus, I am not discussing whether your views are right or wrong, I'm merely questioning why some aspect of a world-view that encompasses everything could be wrong

The question shouldn't be about the aspect of the view but the view itself. It shouldn't be "Can something not be a metaphor with this view?" but rather "Can everything be viewed as a metaphor?"

Does that make sense?

Ahh, I see what you're saying.

Well, the reason why I questioned it the way that I did is because the more I thought about it, the more it seemed that everything I could think of WAS a metaphor in one way or another, and so turned me around to question if everything Really IS a metaphor, or if it just seems that way - by asking if there is even one thing that ISN'T. If there was one thing that can't be, then it would possibly falsify the idea. I figured it could make the topic even more interesting than just shooting strait onto "everything is a metaphor". But even approaching it in the direction of all that is a metaphor could give us the same conclusion I suppose.

Alexandre Orion wrote: ... but what is it the metaphor of ? Even the metaphor is just a textual/lexical element.

This also went through my mind, the idea of even the thing a metaphor represents is also a metaphor, like a mirror reflecting an opposing mirror forever? And so, is there even a single actual thing that the metaphors stop at? I don't see it. :ohmy:

:silly:

Yes! One should reflect on the mirrored mirror analogy when considering everything! This conversation has aided me in puncturing another restrictive membrane of my universe . . . the mirrored mirror is the perfect visual for the infinity of the self/universe!

Look at a pencil...

Remove the word "pencil"...

Now, remove the observer....

What you have left "is"....

And is not a metaphor for anything....

That's a good one, Jestor. It's a stabilizing thought.