tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7621529782651296685.post5905403812238912248..comments2020-08-01T22:28:50.016-06:00Comments on Proactive Progressive Populism: Metaphor as imaginative rationalityEdward Bergehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864657929019204993noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7621529782651296685.post-51294320213221660632011-08-16T11:48:58.979-06:002011-08-16T11:48:58.979-06:00Balder replied:
Yes, I agree it would be problema...Balder replied:<br /><br />Yes, I agree it would be problematic to try to separate intellect and concepts from deeds and facts in this way. Reading Richo's quotation, what I picked up on was a critique of a particular mode of interpretation or thinking: 'insist[ing] on choosing either literal and/or metaphorical.' I recently commented on a post by someone over on Facebook, where he was drawing a stark comparison between literal and metaphorical truths, and appeared to be insisting that science be seen as the realm of the literal and spirituality as the realm of the metaphorical and the two should be kept very distinct. I remarked to him that this struck me as an "Orange"/rationalist distinction -- which, here, I would identify as a mode of thinking which subscribes to 'false reason,' in L&J's terms. I took Richo to be criticizing such a rationalistic, non-participatory (non-embodied) dichotomy.Edward Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13864657929019204993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7621529782651296685.post-14715115884556883212011-08-16T11:37:13.993-06:002011-08-16T11:37:13.993-06:00Here is some more from Metaphors We Live By:
“Met...Here is some more from Metaphors We Live By:<br /><br />“Metaphor is not merely a matter of language. It is a matter of conceptual structure. And conceptual structure is not merely a matter of the intellect—it involves all the natural dimensions of our experience, including aspects of our sense experiences: color, shape, texture, sound, etc…. Metaphors are not merely things to be seen beyond. In fact, one can see beyond them only by using other metaphors. It is as though the ability to comprehend experience through metaphor were a sense, like seeing or touching or hearing, with metaphors providing the only ways to perceive and experience much of the world. Metaphor is as much a part of our functioning as our sense of touch, and as precious” (235 - 8).Edward Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13864657929019204993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7621529782651296685.post-63325118604728063092011-08-16T09:39:50.338-06:002011-08-16T09:39:50.338-06:00I wasn’t saying you were Balder. I was pointing to...I wasn’t saying you were Balder. I was pointing to Rico, who borders on it when he said:<br /><br />“The richness is not reached through an analyzing intellect, which will insist on choosing either literal and/or metaphorical…. The spirit does not dwell in concepts but in deeds and facts.” <br /><br />There is no differentiation between this analyzing intellect and intellect, i.e., real and false reason. It seems intellect is just analyzing and concepts are apart from deeds and facts, whereas for L&J they are of not different in this way.Edward Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13864657929019204993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7621529782651296685.post-21219853397429040282011-08-16T07:33:50.827-06:002011-08-16T07:33:50.827-06:00To be clear, I wasn't opposing metaphor and re...To be clear, I wasn't opposing metaphor and reason or appealing to 'false reason' in L&J's sense, and I don't think Mary (or the author she was quoting) was either. Yes, remember the baby in the bathwater!Balderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/noreply@blogger.com