Re:Isomorphism in metaphors

You say, "my understanding that the power of the ambiguous function assignment comes from allowing the client to assign his/her own meaning to the assignment". Well, that is pretty much absolutely correct. Whay they learn from the task is what they assign.

Then you ask "Why are metaphors seen as more powerful when they maintain isomorphism to the problem? " I don't know where you got that idea...but I would say that this is a bit incorrrect in its formulation. Metaphors, if understood at all by the client, are understood because ~the listener makes them isomorphic~...that is, not because the teller made it isomorphic. Only when the listener puts him or herself into the story and has experience is it meaningful. So, in other words, this is exactly the same as what happens in ambiguous function assignments...the client figures out how to make it "sensible" for his or her life...thus makes it isomorphic.

And the other learning here is that the teller need not work to make it isomophic ~to the problem~...please, make the stories weave the ~solution and experiences needed for cure~...the client will do the work to make it isomorphic (or will simply not get it). I call such metaphor "goal directed" as opposed to what I first thought in 1978 and wrote about in Practical Magic as isomorphic (to the problem) metaphors.

Replies:

Re:Isomorphism in metaphors, by Trent, 03/29/04 Re:Isomorphism in metaphors, by Steve Lankton, 03/30/04 Re:Isomorphism in metaphors, by Trent, 03/30/04 Re:Isomorphism in metaphors, by Steve Lankton, 03/30/04 Re:Isomorphism in metaphors, by Trent, 04/01/04 Re:Isomorphism in metaphors, by Steve Lankton, 04/01/04

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.