And after marrying my wife, whose mother is blind, I gained an entirely
new appreciation for the whole business of seeing. She "sees" a lot of
things that I don't. Anyway, I'm not trying to belabor diversity, just
make a point about metaphors. I agree that there is a tendency to overuse
and seek the "one-minute manager" approach. The pace of change in today's
world seems to set us up with this sense of time urgency about everything,
including communication. Quick, efficient communication is valued, and at
times that is important. But there is an old saying that those who forget
the past are doomed to repeat it. Many of my older peers admire my
youthful enthusiasm, but they have a lot more patience and are more
inclined to long philosophical discussions and parables. Is it their
wisdom or the effects of age on their physical stamina that causes this?
That's a lot of words so far, and the point isn't clear. What I am saying
is that all communication is metaphor, in the "cognitive metaphor" sense.
To rely on a literary metaphor, it is akin to the three blind men
describing an elephant. Even a language with so many words as ours is
quite imprecise. Also, much of the discussion in question was rational
argument, which was based on a series of assumptions, some subtle, some
obvious. Perhaps the most obvious is Charles' supposition of the
importance of rationality. While I am in agreement, this is by no means a
consensus. Many people have higher priorities; for some it is a religious
belief, for some a political system, for some the pursuit of wealth or
self-gratification - the list goes on. So while I see the nobility of
Charles' goals, I humbly submit that there is plenty of room for metaphor
as well. For me, as long as the participants are HONEST and try to be
clear, there is value to the communication. Obviously I myself need to
work on being more concise.
Sean Gawne, gawnesm@songs.sce.com
> Eddy Steenbergen writes:
>
> > I see metaphor as a vital tool to achieve new insights into a problem, issue
> > or situation. It can allow us to take entirely new perspectives and look
> > with different eyes at something (whoops - almost a tautology there).
> >
>
Charles responded:
> The reality rather than metaphor is that we have only one set of
> eyes we can see through. If you think you need another set of eyes,
> or more literally; another perspective, then you have failed to be
> objective. Objectiveness is the principle skill of the scientist--
> social or physical.
>
> Again, the metaphor has let understanding down without your
> realization.
>
Charles, while it is true that we only have one set of eyes, it is
also true that we "really see" with our brains - which includes our
emotions, previous experiences, anticipated results, the heart and the
soul, ... As I see it, the eyes only handle the physical stuff (light,
colors, shapes, etc.), it is the brain the one that tells us what is
that we see!
I also feel that different perspectives can add to or polish your
objectivity!
Ivan,
***************************************************************
R. IVAN BLANCO, Ph.D. Voice 305 899-3515
Assoc. Prof. & Director Fax 305 892-6412
International Business Programs
Andreas School of Business _________E-Mail Addresses________
Barry University Bitnet: Blanco%bu4090@Barryu
Miami Shores, FL 33161-6695 Internet: Blanco@bu4090.barry.edu
<<<<< ---------------- >>>>>
"Las naciones marchan hacia el termino de su grandeza, con
el mismo paso que camina su educacion." "The nations march
toward their greatness at the same pace as their educational
systems evolve." Simon Bolivar
===============================================================