A lot of thought for my own bad art: October 2010

An imaginative look at the possibilities of time conception, Lightman’s novel is a pleasure to read. Every vignette of a different world with a different time structure or understanding of time seemed in some way possible. As a reader I was capable of placing myself in that setting and realizing that I would not know the difference because of the conscious encompassing nature of time. One of the passages that I liked the best was the notion of endless amount of time, and the dichotomy that Lightman set up between the “nows” and the “laters”. This one was particularly interesting because I was able to explain the premises of the idea to other people and ask them whether they would consider themselves a now or a later. Many people said that they would be “laters” and that in fact no “nows” would exist bases on the idea that with an endless amount of time there would be nothing that pushes anyone to do anything. Others said that they would eventually be a “now” because they would relatively quickly get bored with just sitting around and not doing anything.
Another passage that struck me as interesting was the concept of being able to feely move with in time, fast-forward time, or stay paused in time. This passage was interesting because it so very relevant to the way people handle their experience with time anyway. Some people try to get away from time, fast-forward it by constantly moving and being interested in the new. Others are stuck in a situation that was at one point lovely and interesting, but now has faded to monotony. These people stay invested in this situation only for fear of change. This relates to the physicist on Radio Lab’s explanation of time. That time is a measure of change.

by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson

This was a very in depth but extremely interesting article. At some points it tinkered on the obvious metaphors, and other times it highlighted the obscured use of metaphor in language. The explanation of the physical basis for why these metaphors exist and the reiteration of how these metaphors are systemized and not random was particular valuable to understanding of the article. The objectification of ideas, concepts, and theories as a way of discussing and thinking about them was also particularly interesting (ontological metaphors and container metaphors). I began to try and consider time or an idea without enveloping it into a container or objectifying it in some way. This was an incredibly difficult practice. At this point I really understood the way metaphor permeates not only our language, but also our general understanding and thought processes. I’ve been thinking about the way people compartmentalize and associate different events and concepts. Also how this compartmentalization may vary in different cultures or may have varied in past generations with different sets of values. This article was very helpful and lead me to see that maybe the compartmentalization is the same with all people minds the values are the only change, but that doesn’t change the organization of thought.

Metonymy was particularly interesting because by using this type of metaphor, the speaker is highlights the perceived important aspect of the reference, like the portrait example in the text on page 37. The metonymy metaphor of human thought functions in overtime in the visual arts field, because of so many referential aspects. It functioned in the past with symbolism in religious artwork and presently with constant references to art history. The ability of the mind to see something and draw a connection to something else is an integral part of compartmentalization and organized thought.

I had questions about one particular passage about the orientation metaphor. The passage is as followed:

Some things, like people and cars, have inherent fronts and backs, but others like trees do not. A rock may receive a front-back organization under certain circumstances. Suppose you are looking at a medium-sized rock and there is a ball between you and the rock – say, a foot away from the rock. Then it is appropriate for you to say “The ball is in front of the rock.” The rock has received a front-back orientation, as if it had a front that faced you.

The article continues with there being a alternative and contradictory statement but equal in meaning which is “that the ball was behind the rock if it was between you and the rock.” I disagree with this passage completely. Both statements are equal in the explanation of the position of the rock, thus showing that the rock and the ball do not have a front-back orientation. It is the orientation of the viewpoint of the person that allows for position description. In the first case scenario, the viewer has a more egocentric viewpoint with all objects spanning out from them. The ball is in front because it is closer to the viewer or the central vantage point. In the second scenario, the viewer is object just as the ball and the rock are object. Thus they are all objects in a line of objects; first the rock, then the ball, then the person. So the ball is behind the rock and the viewer is behind the ball. If the scenarios were substituted with things that had inherent fronts and back, then the orientation of the viewer wouldn’t be in question, only the orientation of the middle object would be important, because it becomes the central vantage point. I think only things with inherent fronts and back truly receive front-back orientations. With something lacks front-back orientation, then the front-back orientation metaphors revert back to the speaker who does have front-back orientation.

On a side note, I think I read excerpts from this book before in a philosophy class, but it was talking about the problems that surround the word “is” in language. It stated that the word “is” classifies something as “being” and suggests a totality and static state. This is problematic when everything in the natural changes and gets transforms. I can remember it as well as I would like so I’m going to get the book and finish the chapters, both cause it seems like a really interesting book and I would like to see if that passage is in there. ( I just used “is” and the container metaphor)