[lbo-talk] Philip Mirowski - Social Physicist

[Vincent Clarke]

>
> ^^^^^
> CB:  Like I said, the structures are metaphors (smile).  The structure
> is expressed as metaphors, if you like.  Or if you want to understand
> the concept of the Levi-Straussian "structure" think of metaphors.
> The binary oppositions are more fundamental or are sort of "building
> blocks" for the structure/metaphor/analogy.
>
> a:b::c:d ( a is to b as c is to d). The structure is a relationship
> between binary opposition relationships. A double relationship. A
> metaphor is a double relationship, an arbitrary,conventional, or
> cultural identification of two relationships. There's no "natural"
> identity between the opposition male/female and the opposition
> seaside/island side. It is a historical or arbitrary cultural
> identification. It is arbitrary in the sense that it could have been
> male is to female as islandside is to seaside if the history of this
> mythical island were different *, reversing the second binary
> opposition. The arbitrary identification of one binary opposition with
> another is like what happens when a poet presents a metaphor.
>
>
For the last time: the "structure" IS the binary opposition. If we had a
tertiary opposition the "structure" would be the opposition itself, not the
elements contained. Metaphors are built within these structures, these
structures are not metaphors per se - they preclude metaphors. I'll give you
two more examples, but that's it, because I'm repeating myself and this is
getting exhausting and if you don't get it this time, then I'm afraid you
never will:

(1) Computer science. Computers operate through physical circuitry. These
circuits have two "states": "open" (1) and "closed" (0). This is the
"structure" (its a physical, material structure). Now, we run electricity
through this structure and by manipulating the opening and closing of the
"gates" we convert energy into information.

Culture/language is not dissimilar. We operate within many structures - most
fundamentally the structure of grammar. Without this structure of grammar
(and other structures) language would not function - just like without the
physical structure the computer would be unprogrammable.

(2) For a less scientific example lets take the semiotic square (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotic_square). Not that the elements are
completely arbitrary, but that the relationships (the structure) is
predetermined. Now let's fill up the structure and see what happens (
http://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/narratology/modules/greimassquare.html
).

See, now we've highlighted how these terms relate to each other. We've
discovered their inherent structure - their structural opposition to each
other.

All of this structure is not metaphor (although it is the basis of metaphor)
it IS binary opposition - it IS opposition itself. You get me yet?