[New-Poetry] Re: Books a poet should own

[Roger Day]

Compare and contrast
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
with
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_metaphor

The former article offends my mathematical sensibility. the latter
article seems to be a better handle on metaphor, and it, too strains
for equivalence I think.

Take the wiki article on the mathematical definition of equals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_%28mathematics%29

a = b

where a = b in *all ways*, but metaphor (as defined in the above
article) says that b only equals a in "some way". Mathematics knows no
half-way house. It is "equal" or it is not otherwise you're using the
wrong notation:

"Two mathematical objects are equal if and only if they are precisely
the same in every way. This defines a binary relation, equality,
denoted by the sign of equality "=" in such a way that the statement
"x = y" means that x and y are equal."

In fact if you do a reverse lookup in wikipedia on Equals, it doesn't
mention metaphor. Neither does the on-line chambers.

As a side note, an "is a" relationship in Object-Oriented programming
says, for example, a "Ford Mondeo" is a "Car", and this fits because
Car is a Category, not a metaphor, a precise idealisation of the
object that has four wheels and carries people, things. A ford mondeo
is an adaptation of the type car. It is not an equals operator.

Roger
On 10/23/06, Roger Day <rog3r.day at gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe what we're straining to find is the word or concept
> "equivalence". Equivalence in maths is less strict than equals.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation
>
> "Equivalence relations should rather be thought of as grouping
> together objects that are similar in some sense, see also the notion
> of partition below."
>
> There's that word similar. It also neatly brings in set theory.
>
>
> Roger
>
> On 10/23/06, Kazmandu at aol.com <Kazmandu at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 10/22/2006 6:59:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > new-poetry-request at wiz.cath.vt.edu writes:
> >
> > _Kazmandu at aol.com_ (mailto:Kazmandu at aol.com)  wrote:
> > >  When I took physics one of the
> > > first things the professor said was that  ‘=’ means ‘is like’ not
> > ‘is’
> > > even though we say ‘is’.
> >
> > Yesterday I was at Translation conference (translation from a
> > philosophical,
> > political and sociological perspective) and  I'm definitely now of
> > the mind that in language there can never be 'means' but only
> > 'is like'. The translator's ideal remains 'means' but s/he must settle  for
> > 'is like'. There are bi-directional gains and losses in this, of course,
> > for both the source and target language.
> > Finnegan
> >
> >
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> >      I am not sure of what you are saying. Are you saying that 'means' means
> > '='?
> >
> > Are you saying there is no 'is' only 'is like'?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Kaz
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kaz
> >
> > http://mathematicalpoetry.blogspot.com/
> > http://www.kazmaslanka.com/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > New-Poetry mailing list
> > New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
> > http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://www.badstep.net/
> Suspicion breeds confidence
>


-- 
http://www.badstep.net/
Suspicion breeds confidence