tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post9133476280051898369..comments2024-03-28T07:50:06.102-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: metaphorhacker.netmike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-89287483252130688522013-12-19T17:42:09.989-05:002013-12-19T17:42:09.989-05:00We use metonymy as high level abstraction all the ...We use metonymy as high level abstraction all the time, e.g., "Washington" to indicate the political aspect of the US government, "non-believers" (formerly "heathen") to indicate those not agreeing with a particular religious ideology, "K Street" to refer to Washington lobbyists, etc. <br /><br />There's nothing wrong with metonymy as a figure of speech. It depends on how it is used. Randy calls MMT "Modern Money Theory" and uses "modern money" throughout his work, operationally defined as chartal money.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-86451705127491725142013-12-19T14:51:10.106-05:002013-12-19T14:51:10.106-05:00Like I see what Dominik means here Tom:
"whe...Like I see what Dominik means here Tom:<br /><br />"when we become aware of the images that are contained in a metonymy (as in the examples above), we are witnessing a failure of the metonymy."<br /><br />I see this pagan thing that y researched "contained in the metonymy" and my instinct is to get the hell away from it pronto... I dont even use the word anymore unless I put it in quotations, its dark imo...<br /><br />This word leads to at least massive confusion in humans that prevents them from seeing what is really going on... its sort of like a "spell" or something in its effect the way it looks to me anyway... its a big problem...<br /><br />rsp,Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-49132638931718858762013-12-19T14:43:52.343-05:002013-12-19T14:43:52.343-05:00Well this quote from Dominik here gets my attentio...Well this quote from Dominik here gets my attention Tom:<br /><br />"the magic of direct connection"<br /><br />Which he sees as a more dangerous aspect of metonymy (vs metaphor)...<br /><br />I think y traced the metonym "money" back to the name of some sort of ancient pagan temple or idol image of some sort...<br /><br />So we bring that type of pagan stuff right into the conversation when we start using this word "money" and like Dominik asserts here the "magic" in the thinking starts right there... this whole concept of the "money" metonymy here is dark entryway into this moron-fest that we can all see imo... <br /><br />IMO we should stop using that word other than in a purely "academic" context...<br /><br />rsp,<br /><br />Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-22958464609299564762013-12-19T12:36:36.330-05:002013-12-19T12:36:36.330-05:00I recommend reading Lakoff's books to understa...I recommend reading Lakoff's books to understand what he is saying about metaphor being basic to conceptual framing, hence language. They are all available free for download if one searches. There is no choice in the matter. It is a consequence of evolutionary biology. It's the way that cognition developed and it's reflected in the neural anatomy. <br /><br />Framing involves software and software has to run on the hardware for which it is developed. So many basic metaphors are universal, making animal and human communication similar and languages translatable into other languages. Humans can understand each other because we are coming from the same place.<br /><br />Most of our use of metaphor is unconscious, just like most of cognition as mental processing is unconscious. Without reading someone like Lakoff or Damasio, one is unlikely to be able to figure this for oneself, since it is based in neurology.<br /><br />Metonymy is high level abstraction. There is a big argument over whether high level abstraction is purely nominal or ontological, i.e., descriptive of reality. In some cases, metonymy is clearly nominal, when the context is so abstract as to make the meaning disconnected from any clear application. For example, "system" can apply to formal system (nominal) and to actual systems (real). When there is a clearly descriptive aspect to metonymy and then the question is over context and criteria for application.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.com