One interesting notion I noticed early on was the question of “can metaphors be designed?”. I found this very interesting because the way I thought about it was that everything is designed and created. How else could we go about creating something, especially with words? Don’t we have to have a design in mind? The author then goes on to say how they can be designed. He then discusses how metaphors are used so we can better understand abstract things. I agree and disagree with this. I think the author is right when saying it’s used to understand abnormal things but I also believe they can be used to understand anything.
Another interesting point the author made was the idea of mapping between two concepts and categorization proposals. While the author deems these two ideas to be different, I must disagree. I see little to no difference between them. In both cases you are taking something unfamiliar and pairing it with something more common/familiar so people can understand it. Also, in both instances you are designing and creating a metaphor. I didn’t truly follow the authors reasoning to how they are different because to me they seemed the same. The process may have been slightly different but overall the same.
You wrote: “One interesting notion I noticed early on was the question of “can metaphors be designed?”. I found this very interesting because the way I thought about it was that everything is designed and created. ”
—Your right. This quote implies that it’s possible that metaphor isn’t designed. What do you think that means? If a metaphor isn’t designed, from where did it come? How does that work? What do you think Geary would say about this?
Looking great! Keep it up!