Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

41405Re: metonymy? ibidem

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    May 28 6:23 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      "But not unlike the deconstructionists, and the fundamentalist
      religious, C J can only argue within the terms of his enunciation and
      the purpose of his discourse, having predisposed of any other hope of
      meaning."

      I only drink snake-oil for the taste, not for the cure. I don't know
      how the brain works beyond any hard scientific data, but C J, my point
      is neither do you, and you have exited the sensible constraint of
      science in your giddy proposition, while I have not. So I am assuming
      you are proposing a philosophy based upon your recursive definition of
      how things are. In that case you can be sure that your soul belongs to me.

      tc

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Lofting" <chrislofting@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > A wonderful example of someone raving on without knowledge of how
      the brain
      > works and so seeds all categories etc.
      >
      > Thus the assertion that:
      >
      > > Metonymy is just a form of literary
      > > expression, a figure of speech, involving a conceptual hierarchy where
      > > a lesser related term that is a part of a general larger concept is
      > > substituted, usually for interest impact, in place of the larger term
      >
      > Is true but also false in that it lacks scope, it limits itself to
      > literature unaware that literature is a specialisation and so
      metaphor that
      > comes with its own language but each term in that language exploits the
      > underlying sameness across all specialisations - the properties and
      methods
      > of the brain.
      >
      > One of the properties is associated with the use of dichotomies to
      derive
      > meaning and in this particular case the dichotomy of metonymy/metaphor.
      >
      > The ASYMMETRIC nature of the dichotomy brings out metonymy as an
      > exaggeration of some particular from the metaphor to serve as if the
      > metaphor, and so an aspect/part is presented as if the whole.
      >
      > This is NOT a property limited to literature and the realm of
      tropes; it is
      > a property of our brains in the mapping of, derivation of, meaning -
      and it
      > fact it has its roots in sensory paradox - e.g. the necker cube
      experiments
      > etc where a part/aspect of the whole (a complex line drawing) is
      considered
      > to be the whole (as a cube oscillating in orientiation).
      >
      > See examples in
      http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html
      >
      > Of interest from an existentialist perspective, is that our singular
      nature
      > is metonymic in the context of the individual as a singular
      consciousness
      > (and so the 'whole') often serves as a representative of the species
      and, in
      > drug induced behaviour becomes a 'species'! ... and so part-for-whole
      > mapping.
      >
      > Chris.
      >
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic