View Full Version : the life of the metaphorical

10-16-2014, 08:11 PM
does any individual's usage of language to communicate [with the understanding that a) communication involves a speaker and a listener; and b) what is represented in language is not the thing-itself] enter each interlocutor into the realm of delusion - the construction of false perception by way of flawed or fallible communication?

and if so, is the severity of the delusion based on how far from perfect the communication? and is there such thing as a practical-false-perception?

10-17-2014, 04:48 AM
No. :)

10-17-2014, 04:57 AM
I'm unsure of what you mean. Can we get an example?

10-17-2014, 05:11 AM
it's possible you're pulling my leg, but i'll engage you.

your apprehension is a grasping of an idea or concept or question i'm trying to communicate to you.

what if the apprehension is a part of an order.

an easy example (for me) of a clear communication might look like this:

my mother tells me to make a sandwich with ham and cheese and mayo. i make the sandwich, and she's satisfied. in the process of asking for the food, she isn't pointing at someone else's plate and then her mouth, teeth, tongue, throat, digestive region to indicate what she wants.

what if she asks me for xff29xkja1wL, with cheese and mayo?
when i open the fridge, i give her ham instead. not having a clue what xff29xkja1wL might refer to, and worried that it might be something dangerously chemical.


another way of saying the same thing:

have you ever had a miscommunication with someone?
have you ever behaved on or reacted to this miscommunication?

have you ever been misinformed?
have you ever behaved on or reacted with this misinformation?


let's imagine the same scenario, only my mother has just heard of this delicacy called "xff29xkja1wL" but it's nowhere to be found in the room or in the house or in this country. it has only been described to her. when she says she wants to try "xff29xkja1wL" what exactly does she want? before xff29xkja1wL lands on her plate, it is nothing else except for an image, a concept, something imagined, or something symbolic. she could only interact with what xff29xkja1wL is like.


what if my mother wanted mancuspias as pets?


my question pertains to this method of understanding what something is, or how someone feels, when the thing is not directly perceptible and the emotion belongs to another.

especially in moments of uncertain communication - what else could any conviction at that moment be
considered besides a delusion?


a practical delusion might be something like, "i thought i upset you with something i said so i changed the subject very quickly," but i don't know, and in fact i might be dead wrong.

10-17-2014, 06:12 AM
If you're asking if imperfect communication causes problems in conceiving a concept within a reader's mind, then yes. Sorry, but I would say your question is a good example of this; while I'm used to academic, heavy writing, I find your question quite convoluted and grammatically incorrect. But by the content of the question, it's difficult for me to derive the meaning of what you wish to ask without the problems interfering.

You have to look into how a concept is conceived. If there's no representation of a concept, it's hard for that concept to be conceived within the receiver's mind. Let's take "beauty" for example in the language learning realm. If you wish to convey what a flower is in Japanese, you'd point at a rose and say 花(はな)or 薔薇(バラ). The first one means flower, the second rose. But if you point at it and try to describe that rose as beautiful 美(うつく)you run into problems when you point at painting of a woman to describe her the same way. The flower and woman are nothing alike, so how does this word 美 mean both? By means, the concept of beauty can be derived by emotional description due to primal instincts, but most likely will be created and reinforced by cultural means. As in, your culture will decide what is beautiful, and the transfer of that word will be conveyed over languages due to the transfer of shared meaning. This simply does not happen through one case scenarios, but many. The act of reinforcement helps the mind hone in on the singular concept trying to be conveyed. This can happen in any number of ways, so the more clear and perfect the communication used in order to convey the messages of reinforcement the easier it is for the receiver to make sense of it. You can see this in pointing at things that are beautiful, versus stating in the receiver's native tongue that those are beautiful. Without that clarity and perfection with communication, the receiver has any number of problems and solutions. They might not know what the concepts means, but under pressure a person can derive their own focused meaning...

or they could be leading themselves into a concept because they've convinced themselves through a number of vague means that the concept must be the one they seek. Misleading. Like I am doing. Which can be completely wrong. But being misled is a more difficult problem, as the act of misleading is in fact leading the receiver towards a concept that is false, but not wrong.

...Let's see if that hits the target.

10-17-2014, 06:33 AM
OK. Yes.

If you're asking if imperfect communication causes problems in conceiving a concept within a reader's mind, then yes.

I intend to return to this statement later.

on page 3

the poet writes: "We express ourselves with the hope of perfect communication. I think this is rare and maybe impossible."

And I'm thinking, what is the opposing consequence? if the product of perfect and clear communication is a higher potential for sensibility and comprehension, or PERFECT sensibility and PERFECT comprehension, the opposing product might be the gift of a false perception, at one extreme end, or confusion, at the milder other end.

From the perspective that anything 'perfect' is unlikely to exist, it would mean there are degrees of miscommunication: A mild confusion -> a severely false perception.

10-17-2014, 07:01 AM
I think this is more left up to the receiver's own interpretation. If they are confused, they are conflicted--evident of them trying to find the focus of the concept. My first post. If their idea of something is false, it is merely false outside of themselves--as others deem something metaphorical as false, which neither can be wrong or correct.

Then all of this depends on the nature of the communication. So, yes, imperfect communication would lead to confusion or a false perception.

But, as I believe nothing can be perfect, there's always going to be varying degrees of falsehood within the receiver. For example, we could probably converse over this until the end of time and, given that we remove physical limitations, still not be able to have the exact same thought on it.

10-17-2014, 05:24 PM
One of the problems with this model of communication is that it is based on the concept that there should be perfect transmission of ideas, but that every real world method falls short.

I don't think that actually makes any sense. Each of us forms our own universe of ideas based on our personal experience and learning. Note: we share the same physical universe, but our mental universes are personal.

Each idea a person has exists in the context of their own minds, and is used in their personal ways of thinking.

From this perspective, speech is not so much about trying to communicate an exact idea as it is an attempt to spark in the mind of the listener the creation or recall of an idea that is similar enough in relevant aspects to the ideas the speaker had that prompted the speech.

There are, therefore, two qualitatively different kinds of speech: instruction and conversation.

Instruction is an attempt to get someone to do something that produces a result within a region of acceptable outcomes. Thus, no two people will make sandwiches exactly the same way, nor indeed will one person ever make exactly the same sandwich twice. But, if someone is making a sandwich on instructions, what the instructor cares about is that the sandwich fit within acceptable perimeters for that kind of sandwich. For instructions, the distinctions of thought and meaning can be problems to be overcome.

Conversation, on the other hand, is much more about mutual sparking of ideas. For conversation, the differences of thinking are a feature not a bug. Indeed, the primary benefit of talking things out is that two people don't think about the same thing the same way. The goal isn't perfect communication, but the sparking of responses that are beneficial for the way the speaker is thinking about the subject.

10-17-2014, 08:25 PM
A lack of perfection in communication has now been expressed a couple of times, at the level of a concept I might be able to refer to using one word - given an explanation of the concept and its association may require several other, additional words for the concept to be apprehended.

There are, therefore, two qualitatively different kinds of speech: instruction and conversation.

Maybe there are more kinds.

For example, I don't feel story-telling would be limited to either kind of speech, but could include both.

What else does a story accomplish, that is, besides giving instruction or 'sparking ideas'?

ex. to entertain, persuade, or inform


Aside from instruction or ordering (are these distinct?), when would someone seek perfect communication?

06-29-2015, 09:24 PM
Quote - the poet writes: "We express ourselves with the hope of perfect communication. I think this is rare and maybe impossible."

As a poet, I feel differently about this idea. I express for many reasons but through the use of metaphore, sometimes I want ambiguity in poems as an exploratory pathway to idea's, experiences, affect, etc. If communication means to touch or feel, give or receive or make exchanges across physical boundaries from one to another, I do see apprehension at work, intellectually and emotionally. A little ambiguity stands to allow this type of transaction without perfectly communcating the intent or exact destination of a writer's work in order to provide the opportunity for comprehension on one of many levels. Sometimes the act of communication is rerouted many times before two people end up at the same place.

10-31-2015, 07:05 AM
I have little important to communicate, but feel compelled all the same: :) X//r#xomdfmff (http://www.pagepulp.com/wp-content/academia.jpg)

Though I do admit a little curiosity as to the "why" of this question...it feels like a precursor to some potential cognitive derivend.

11-06-2015, 07:53 PM
What else does a story accomplish, that is, besides giving instruction or 'sparking ideas'?

ex. to entertain, persuade, or inform

To connect, to move.

11-09-2015, 10:16 PM
To connect, to move.

Bounce, obligate, deride, annoy, deceive