Thursday, April 24, 2008

Conceptual Metaphors

Over the past couple of years I have been familiarizing myself with the world of cognitive science, specifically with cognitive linguistics. The reason for this is because I am deeply interested in all things epistemology and the many roads I have traversed seem to be leading, or converging, in this direction: conceptual metaphor as the center-piece of thought. I am increasingly convinced that almost all knowledge is the byproduct of an embodied experience of the created order through the structuring mechanism of metaphor. Because we are created in God's image I believe we have certain innate capacties that enable our embodied experience, which is why I say almost all knowledge is acquired via metaphor. In effect, what I also see here is a functional bridge between philosophy and theology (I will explain later).

Conceptual metaphor, as a cognitive linguistic mechanism, is the "mapping" of two conceptual domains in order to understand one domain in terms of the other. For example (from my most recent foray), let's use the metaphor "Arithmetic Is Object Collection." The two conceptual domains are "arithmetic" and "object collection." The source domain is "object collection" because that is the domain we are using to understand and frame the concept of arithemtic; consequently the target domain is "arithmetic" because that is the domain we are trying to understand in the terms of our concept(s) of object collection. The mapping works like this (and this is, largely, straight from Where Mathematics Comes From by Lakoff and Nunez, 2000):

source domain --> target domain
object collection --> arithmetic
collections of objects the same size --> numbers
the size of the collection --> the size of the number
bigger --> greater/higher
smaller --> lesser/lower
the smallest collection --> the unit (one)
putting collections together --> addition
taking a smaller collection from a larger collection --> subtraction

This metaphorical mapping occurs on a regular every-day basis and is, in general, largely taken for granted. We ask our waiter for more napkins (or more food) because we are using up what was initially provided to us. In this example we have both conceptual metaphors working. We have a collection of objects (napkins/food) which becomes smaller/less as we subtract from it and becomes bigger/greater as we add to it. But when we ask for more napkins, how often is the concept of arithmetic, or even object collection, consciously present to us? We are "simply" thinking we need more napkins because the meal is particularly messy this evening. Yet, without this metaphoric mapping the concepts of addition and subraction could not be understood. Or, understanding them would be significantly more difficult at any rate. All of this, of course, is a very small (though not insignificant) segment of the larger picture being painted by cognitive science and linguistics. So what's the tie-in with philosopy and theology if we're talking about science?

For all its bluster about objectivity, the scientific community at large has not (and cannot) escape the subjectivity of truth and knowledge. From a purely empirical standpoint, the only experience of reality we can have is a human experience; thus truth and knowledge are subjective even if only in this basic sense. Likewise, the philosophical endeavors within epistemology are doomed to debate eternally because philosophy, like science, refuses to turn to theology for substantive answers. In this vein, let me bring my proposition(s) to a head and this post to a close. Theology is the "meta-string" which ties science and philosophy together. This "meta-string" consists largely (or at least centrally) of conceptual metaphors. The capacity for cross-mapping domains via conceptual metaphors is what allows the connection between the concrete and the abstract as these categories are traditionally understood. What I'd really like to do for graduate work is see what sort of impact/influence this cognitive mechanism has on systematic and biblical theology. More specifically, I think this mechanism could be extremely beneficial in broadening and deepening our knowedge of who and what God is, especially with regards to the person and work of Jesus.

No comments: