Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA18992 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:20:23 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.31.29.83] User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.3 Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:12:19 +0000 Subject: metaphors, science, religion From: Steve Drew <srdrew_1@hotmail.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Message-ID: <B8BAC542.346%srdrew_1@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200203172200.WAA18905@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk> Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2002 22:14:24.0770 (UTC) FILETIME=[18B21E20:01C1CE01] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Hi Jim
> Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 16:09:14 -0500
> From: "Jim" <jforbes@chatpress.com>
> Subject: metaphors, science, religion
>
> Grant writes: "For subjects like mysticism or religion, we have to resort to
> metaphor in an attempt to explain ideas that are too abstract to be
> understood through language."
>
> When you say that that metaphor is used in an attempt to explain ideas that
> are too abstract for language, your statement comes across as odd as a
> minimum and potentially incoherent because metaphor is intrinsic to
> language. Further, somewhere along the way metonymy got lost.
>
> In the semiotic model of language (as powerful a model as I have found),
> metaphor exploits similarity relationships between things (as opposed to
> words). Metonymy exploits contiguity relationships between things. Metaphor
> and metonymy operate at the pre-linguistic level --where one element is
> temporarily replaced by another -- and mediate between the affective and
> linguistic "levels." There are three levels in the semiotic model:
> affective, pre-linguistic, and linguistic. For what it is worth, the
> affective and linguistic levels are equivalent to the primary and secondary
> processes as defined by Freud in the Interpretation of Dreams. The affective
> level/primary process denies any difference between similar elements or any
> distance between contiguous elements. The linguistic level/secondary process
> is concerned with relationships that connect one memory trace to another; it
> establishes irreducible differences among similar and contiguous elements.
>
> Also for what it is worth, the various discussions over the last week have
> suggested that somehow there is a "quantum leap" (sorry, could not resist
> that) between science and religion. There is a credible argument to the
> effect that there is less distance between science and religion than the
> discussions in this group might suggest. Interesting reading that would
> support such as statement includes Lakoff and Mohnson's Metaphors We Live
> By, Murray's Myth and Mythmaking, Burrell and Morgan's Sociological
> Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific
> Revolutions, and Huene's Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions, among
> others. If, in Burrell and Morgan's terms, you are a functionalist then I
> suppose science and religion are different. Since I make my living as a
> techie and was taught by functionalists, I lived in the functionalist world
> for many years. It was only after "graduating" if you will, that I realized
> how limiting a view it had been.
>
> Jim
Can't say i know much about semiotics (I'm just reading a primer now), but,
sociologically speaking there are similarities between organised science and
religion. Brian Appleyard's 'Understanding the Present', and Anthony
O'Hear's 'After Progress' make interesting reading, though i disagree with
their conclusions. Functionally, there is no difference between science and
religion. Both serve to give a meaning to the world and, usually to support
the present order in power.
Regards
Steve
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 17 2002 - 23:28:10 GMT