[Arlo] > You're arguing the two statements "man is a wolf" and "men flirt with women" > are > exactly identical. Neither has any other meaning except for the other? What > about man's aggressiveness? Man's social packing? Man's nurturing of their > young? Man's predatory nature? Certainly we can keep "unpacking" this > metaphor > on and on and on, but do any of these things capture the same insight and > meaning as "man is a wolf"? I'd say absolutely not.
[Craig] My point is not that the two statements ALWAYS have the same meaning, only that SOMETIMES they can. CRAIG: (referring to a man chatting with a woman at a bar) "He's a wolf". ARLO: "Why do you think he's nurturing of his young?" CRAIG: "I don't. I just meant "He's flirting with that woman". ARLO: "When you say "He's flirting with that woman", are you speaking metaphorically?" CRAIG: "No." [Arlo] > I'm avoiding the condescending remark :-( [Arlo] > If I could tell you what they symbolize in "literal words", the art would be > meaningless. They may serve to point towards different "things" for every > person, but always the pointer is going outside the (any) symbolic system. If what is symbolized is different for everyone and you can't say what it is, you don't have a symbolic system. Craig moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
