It's my contention that those who study metaphor consider the
  language of logic as metaphorical and within their domain and
  those who study logic consider the structure of metaphor to be
  within their domain. Systems perspective... which has its own
  logic and metaphorical ways as well. That is not to say that I
  know who is superior but I do know that it is possible to
  describe any system, at least in part, utilizing comparably
  powerful languages.

  We lack a plural You in English that's acceptable. "You all"
  "You's" "You guys" "Y'all". It sucks. In a sense, English is
  broken.

  But we have ways. "You all", "You's" "You guys" "Y'all" or
  simply using "You" as the rules proscribe and _hope_ that
  context fills in the missing plural/singular distinction.

  Other languages don't have that issue.

  Likewise, I may describe Logic utilizing Metaphor methodologies.
  You may describe Metaphors by Logical methodologies. You may say
  that the underpinning of Metaphorical language is Logic. I may
  say the underpinning of Logic is Metaphor.

  Both of us miss on the nuances of the other, discarding what
  doesn't fit as irrelevant, when it might be crucial to the
  other.

  This isn't to say I believe each are equally correct. Just that
  it happens.

You are viewing proxied material from sdf.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.