Reply to comment

My previous post is a rather detailed explanation, making note of the many elements and cognitive processes, or techniques that are necessary to "easily draw abstract connections between largely unrelated objects to produce and understand metaphorical language". My opinion, or proposition is not materially different from many of your articles, the explanations of which would require exacting research and results. Would you be comfortable being held to the same standard of certainty and exactitude?

I stated that the mystery implied, as to the formation or creation of metaphors, and their "abstract connections", is explicable. The explanations are contained in my previous comments,(post). Obviously, these explanations do not rise to the degree of exactitude and verifiability you seem to require, and do not always provide, in some of your articles. I find this troubling. After all, my 'opinion' is proffered, not as concrete fact, but as a proposition.

Admittedly, I failed to couch my remarks with language that made absolutely clear I was speaking in propositional terms. Therein, may lie your need for an explanation that rises to a higher degree of exactitude or verifiability. The "facts" in my exposition reflects a genuine understanding, or if you like, a belief as to the issues entertained. Of course, in spite of my confidence, you, or anyone else can disagree with my convictions, relative to the issue of metaphors.

Critical analysis requires specificity. Rather that merely asking me to offer an explanation,(which I did), why did you not specifically critique, point by point, that which was offered by me, and "demonstrate", or otherwise logically spell out how I "failed" to make a reasonable argument. In the absences of this common sense, 'scientific', and systematic approach, your statement, "ok, explain it", appears self-serving, and convenient.

I stated, "the mystery implied is explicable, though veiled in the process of creative synthesis". This is a complex process, involving all of the for mentioned components necessary to consciously or unconsciously "draw abstract connections between largely unrelated objects to produce and understand metaphorical language". Clearly, the abstract connections come from that which is contained in the mind. The ability to make the necessary metaphorical connections, must, of necessity, draw upon that which is contained in the mind. Specific metaphors, and their abstract connections cannot be established without having "mastered" specific kinds of knowledge, word meaning, grammar, and so forth. Why should this be so difficult to perceive or understand? Please, kindly critique in a meaningful and logical manner, why and how my explanation is unreasonable.

What is a connection, anyway, in a cognitive or metaphorical sense, if not relevant and specific thought associations, perceived consciously, or unconsciously,and derived from a working memory; shaped by education, knowledge, philosophy, word understanding and usage, literary knowledge, and so forth. The implied mystery, in pragmatic terms, is the difficulty, or impossibility of sorting through, identifying and organizing, in a step-lock manner, all of the relevant cognitive connections; relevant and specific thought associations, that lead to metaphorical thinking.

In my view, the primary question is how the process of creative syntheses actually makes the connections necessary to form or create metaphors, and abstract connections. Again, specific grounding, as mentioned, must play a fundamental role. Certainly, there are other factor. I would characterize them, in general terms as mind-set; education, mental habits, motivation, and perhaps necessity. Creative synthesis is not fully amenable to analysis, therefore, the essential question for further investigation, with respect to metaphors, and their abstract connections, is the nature and characteristics of creative synthesis, as it applies to the formation and creation of metaphors, and their abstract connections. This is my "explanation".