Analogy vs Metaphor

To distinguish between analogy and metaphor, we note that:

Metaphor is when we say X is Y such that Y is used to enhance the 'meaning' associated with X; we express X in terms of Y. (The word 'Metaphor' comes from the Greek word metapherein - to transfer).

For example, in the context of wholes/aspects processing, "we will call this whole(X) 'an apple'(Y)" creates a 'weak' metaphor - 'an apple' - that substitutes for the simpler but lengthy 'this red whole that is eatable' which also substitutes for a physical manifestation - the 'thing' itself. In this process I have transfered the 'meaning' of 'this red whole..' onto the term 'an apple'. I can now use the word 'apple' in a tight literal sense as in when saying the word and pointing to the object, or in a figurative sense, as in "New York: The Big Apple"; where I am using meanings linked with apples to enhance the description of New York.

With metaphor, we can build layers and layers of data such that the metaphor is refined, and thus a long way from the 'thing' itself, but also encapsulates as many aspects of 'the thing' as possible. A 'rich' metaphor (words of a poem for example) can often lead to an intuitive grasping of what is being discussed without once mentioning the 'name' of the thing - i.e. 'the apple'. 'Raw' metaphor is when we get as close as possible to 'the thing'; maths and science try to do this, but they are still metaphors. What is implied in this is that all metaphors have a potentially hierarchic structure.

Kohl (1992) points out that:

"...there is a more precise use of the word metaphor. In this usage, metaphor is an implied rather than explicit comparison..."Here hand is a slender ivory sculpture" is a metaphor."

In this context you are asked to see the hand as 'a slender ivory sculpture' but only in the context of aesthetic meaning - not literally. In the 'weak' metaphor above, you are asked to see the 'red whole that is eatable' in the context of classification, and thus a degree closer to the thing itself (literal). Metaphors therefore have varing degrees of form but always deal with the transfer and possible enhancement of 'meaning'.

What is important to note is that metaphor works wholistically - I transfer all meanings of X rather than some aspectual meanings of X. It is the process of transfer that can lead to the confusion of map with territory in that the whole map is a metaphor for the whole territory and thus the confusion is more total than partial. We can see this in psychoanalysis with the concept of transference where a whole persona, not just aspects, is 'given' to the therapist by the patient - the therapist 'becomes' mother or father or whatever in an attempt to enhance the 'meaning' of the therapist/patient relationship. (this is not simile - you (the therapist) arelike my father - but metaphor - you (the therapist) 'are' my father).

Kohl makes the point that:

"As a form of thinking as well as speaking, metaphor opens up the possibility of combining almost any two words and imagining a context in which they enhance meaning.
Here are some metaphors to consider:

a steely gaze
purple prose
an ironclad attitude
a frigid disposition
a hot temper

Thus, the maps we make are metaphors. The symbols of these 'maps' replace generic 'whole'/'aspects' terminology that symbolise the 'thing'; these additional symbols are facades aimed at enhancing the 'raw' meanings and thus enabling a degree of differentation. What this process does is create hierarchy in that all additional facades are within the initial context ('whole', 'part') and each refinement is often within the context of a previous refinement.

As we differentiate the whole and it's aspects, so each metaphor contains a pattern that is based on the way it is created in the brain - a template which is shared amongst all metaphors.

When analysing a metaphor, we then notice aspectual similarities between it and a different metaphor and say 'X of metaphor A resembles Y of metaphor B'; this is analogy, and the ability to do this rests with the sharing of the proposed template.

From this it becomes obvious that there is a definite distinction between analogy and metaphor - analogy is aspectual whereas metaphor is wholistic. However, since any 'whole' can at times be an aspect of a greater whole then it can be used in an analogous form and this can cause confusion in one is not aware of the levels of analysis.

To conclude, we need to mention the word simile and the word metonymy. A simile is when I use the terms 'as' or 'like'. Kohl (1992) gives an example in comparing metaphor and simile where simile is "Her hand is like a slender ivory scultpture." compared to the metaphor where "Here hand is a slender ivory sculpture". [my emphasis]. The word 'simile' is thus close to the word 'analogy' except that it is a wholistic and explicitly imaginative comparison and comes from the Latin word similis, meaning 'like'; analogy has within it an aspectual bias and the possibility of a 'real' connection.

The word metonymy has it's roots in the Greek metonymia. Kohl (1992) points out that:

"Metonymy is a ..figure of speech in which a thing, concept, person, or group is represented by something closely associated with it....
..Metonymy is often contrasted with metaphor. Metonymy is characterized by association, whereas metaphor establishes a relationship of similarity. Thus refering to a king as the throne is an instance of metonymy. Referring to the king as a lion is an instance of metaphor."