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

[Roger Day]

Comments inline ...

On 10/23/06, jfq at myuw.net <jfq at myuw.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Roger Day wrote:
>
> > 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."

> Generally speaking, that's very close to the definition of metaphysical identity, which I think is more pertinent to the idea of metaphor (being broader) than is mathematical identity.

"In logic, the identity relation is normally defined as the relation
that holds only between a thing and itself. That is, identity is the
two-place predicate, "=", such that for all x and y, "x = y" is true
iff x is the same thing as y."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_%28philosophy%29)

"if and only if" is the breaker here. In my mundane world, x and y can
be independant. All the world's a stage ... exeunt pursued by bear.

> > 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.
>
> That's a very good definition of the linguistic copula function of "is" which is different than the identity function-again speaking more broadly in a metaphysical sense.
>
> To take a fairly well known example: "Scott is the author of Waverly" is identity, because "Scott" and "The Author of Waverly" are different names for the same thing.
>
> But "The King of France is Bald" is the copula. Baldness not being a category, but rather an adjective. I think a lot of people make a lot of errors trying to go further with adjectives than that, making of them classes and categories and sets, but I tend to side with uncle ludwig that adjectives are often vague terms that describe different objects that are related to eachother in a fashion similar to the way members of a family resemble eachother.

There is a category Stage, and the world is a class which inherits
(type)Stage. It depends on which part of the auditorium you look at a
blackbird. Or have I got my metaphors mixed?

As for books owned by poets, I nominate http://wikipedia.org/

Roger

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