One thing I've noticed about the false people, both the people caught up in falsehoods and those dispensing falsehoods, is a consistent and often repetitive use of metaphor instead of simple facts or mathematics. (e.g. "Fiscal Cliff" anyone?)
This is out of my area (I am most comfortable with numbers), but I feel I have to get involved here in the semantics because I believe that we who are led to seek to help our fellow citizens reach a full understanding of our monetary systems will not be able to help all of the people we encounter to understand these truths through mathematics.
Many among us do not possess the mathematical cognitive gifts to be able to have these truths revealed to them through mathematics. Therefore, part of the battle will have to be fought in a completely semantic theater, this does not look like it will be easy (especially for me).
I've made the observation that in individuals who cannot sort out the truth mathematically, it seems all they have available to them is a sort of "appeal to authority" in their quest to discern truth. They have no choice but to "believe someone else", they have no other option.
It also seems there is no shortage of other individuals who seek to have others believe their falsehoods, and it looks like at least one weapon they use in their quest to deceive is the metaphor.
I came across this blog (looks like it is shut down :( ) where this gal is looking into metaphor. And she cites an interesting procedure one can run through to detect metaphor:
I shall use an example from “Metaphor. A Practical Introduction”, 2nd Edition, by Zoltan Kovecses. He quotes the Pragglejaz group and their “metaphor identification procedure” (MIP):
1. Read the entire text-discourse to establish a general understanding of the meaning.
2. Determine the lexical units in the text-discourse:
3. (a) For each lexical unit in the text, establish its meaning in context, that is, how it applies to an entity, relation, or attribute in the situation evoked by the text (contextual meaning). Take into account what comes before and after the lexical unit.
(b) For each lexical unit, determine if it has a more basic contemporary meaning in other contexts than the one in the given context. For our purposes, basic meanings tend to be
• More concrete (what they evoke is easier to imagine, see, hear, feel, smell, and taste)
• Related to bodily action
• More precise (as opposed to vague)
• Historically older.
Basic meanings are not necessarily the most frequent meanings of the lexical unit.
(c) If the lexical unit has a more basic current-contemporary meaning in other contexts than the given context, decide whether the contextual meaning contrasts with the basic meaning but can be understood in comparison with it.
4. If yes, mark the lexical unit as metaphorical.
(Pragglejaz Group, 2007,p. 3)So this is a formal process where we can detect even metaphors that are very subtle looks like.
It seems we humans probably cannot communicate semantically without use of metaphor, so use of metaphor by itself is probably not "bad" per se, but we must realize that metaphors are NOT technically the truth or perhaps better they are not reality.
As a quick recommendation (I'm just getting into this), I would encourage truth seekers who are semantic to at least challenge those who continuously dispense metaphor, challenge these people to abandon the use of metaphor and simply explain themselves using facts and perhaps limited mathematics.
If the dispenser of the metaphor CANNOT do that, continue on to seek another authority who can.
