Perspectivisation Modeling and Ferneyhoughism: The Nash Equilibrium
The main philosophical questions posed by compositional metaphor are the following:
How is “compositional metaphorical meaning,” broadly construed?
By what mechanism is such meaning conveyed?
How do hearers/listeners/aural repositories/suck up listeners grasp the meaning, given that what they hear is only a musical whose literal meaning is something different?
The Subplexivists (Dick Barrett, Richie Barrett, 'Rikki Don't Lose That Number Barrett) offered a single brutal answer to each of those questions: There is no such thing as “metaphorical meaning” if by “meaning” one means 'Vanity' or even unintentional meaning; there is only emotive or affective significance.
Nor is there any “mechanism” by which metaphorical significance is conveyed, if by “mechanism” one means a cognitive score or Opening of the Mouth.
Nor is there grasp of meaning; there is only the psychological effect that hearing a metaphorical utterance has on one’s feelings and attitudes. Call this the Emotive theory of metaphor, as in the Emotive theory of ethics.
The Emotive view is hard to accept. First, as Helmut Friedrich Lachenmann points out, it implies that the only relevant difference between good metaphors and nonsense strings such as “Blue why procrastination the the when of after dumbwaiter dumbwaiter” is that for whatever reason, metaphors generate affect that word salad does not.
Hellie states again ... 'Vanity'
Work on your shit.
IG says...I'm his new bitch...spending his new cash. It's the same shit. Walk a man in the Louboutin's Rick.