[MD] What is an analogy?

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[SA]
Also, anybody else, try to define analogy.  What is it?

[Arlo]
Can we define "art". And even if we agreed what art "was", does that description
also define Cezanne's "Pines and Rocks (Fontainebleau)"? (Or fill in your
favorite painting).

"Analogy", "metaphor", these things are textual "art". They point towards the
undefinable undefined. They are irreducible. They are not stable. They are
cultural. Can you reduce Wagner's Ring or Beethoven's Ninth, or Rage Against
the Machine's "Killing in the Name Of" to some "literal" definition and still
preserve its Dynamic message? No (I say).

David Granger writes about this using the art of "literature" as a meaningful
contributor to philosophy. He says, "This praxis-oriented account of language
brings us to still another place where literature, in the form of fiction,
might contribute meaningfully to philosophy. It likewise helps to explain
Wittgenstein's repeated use of fiction in his philosophical investigations."

Earlier, Granger writes, "In her pioneering book Love's Knowledge, Martha
Nussbaum reveals the dominant modes of Western philosophy to be significantly
at odds with Dewey and Pirsig's express commitment to everyday lived
experience. Her central claim is that the expositional style typical of
academic philosophy, and of twentieth-century Anglo-American analytic
philosophy in particular, routinely lends an abstract, formalistic character to
its content-a character that tends to diminish contextual matters and belies
this particularity. What is more, it does so pretty much regardless of how
faithfully that content is taken to reflect the "real world." Nussbaum believes
that these circumstances stem largely from modern philosophy's drive for
disinterested objectivity amplified by Descartes and Enlightenment
rationalism."

My point here is that "art", whether metaphor, dance, symphony, literature,
poetry, didgeridoo, koan or "___", is an important, and irreducible, element to
understanding that S/O foundations ignore, or belittle. What's more, it
situates, in local temporal-social-historical-cultural contexts "meaning" that
emerges from participation in the world, rather than detached, "objective"
views that demand we sit on some (fictional) armchair and observe the world. 

"At the same time, however, Nussbaum recognizes that there has been a long
history of intense debate over the relationship (or lack thereof) between
philosophy and literature. Historically, much of this debate has been couched
in terms of an intractable "ancient quarrel" between philosophy and literature.
That quarrel, which continues to be reiterated and rehearsed in certain
quarters of academia even today, encompasses questions and issues concerning
both literary form (or style) and content. It was first initiated, according to
Nussbaum, by the following two-part question (and expression of the human
eras): How should we live life as human beings and which of the two, philosophy
or literature, should we most look to for guidance?" (Granger, John Dewey,
Robert Pirsig, and the Art of Living)







  When I did above, I kept noticing how analogy
> is difficult to latch, and leaves an undefinable,
> living taste about itself that can't be locked down
> with static patterns.  I don't know somebody else give
> a try.     
> 
> thank you for this opportunity to clarify myself.
> 
> night, gettin' real cold now,
> SA
> 
> 
>  
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. 
> Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
> 
>