Quotes / Metaphors & Mirrors

yeah it’s original. cheers!

...erm, I think not.

plus, repetition does not look in the mirror, since reflections involve simultaneity between the reflected and unreflected object, and nothing that is simultaneous can at the same time be a repetition.

indeed – and this makes your suggestion somewhat ironic – the relationship between simultaneity and repetition is the oppisite of a tautology, since, for the above reasons, the concepts are in fact mutually exclusive; mutual exclusivity being the very opposite of tautology.

best,
Oliver

why not?

Good point. I was thinking (no jokes, please): What about “A rose by any other name is still love.” Isn’t that cute? No? Oh well.

I just read tstone’s comment. Is this what you’re doing here. If so, sorry. This deserves a 10.

can’t say it was exactly that!

OK, well then a 9. :)

i, by contrast, believe it fits very well.

see comments to axiom49’s review, below.

Thanks.

...thought you might stumble across this.

To answer your question: mutual referentiality is what I have in mind.

mutual referentiality? (is that even a word?) I know from whence this came…are you meaning congruent terms?

Congruent does not necessarily mean referential. Congruency is indeed more like metaphor; it’s implicit.

Mutual referentiality denotes logical truth.

As for whether or not ‘referentiality’ is a word, well, that kind of factor rarely matters to me!

:-)

see what you mean. it’s the a=a thing, yes.

i don’t see tautology as a form of rhetoric. it’s just a logical truth, or a superfluous element of description.

mirror images are mutually referential even if inverted, so i do not see the inversion as problematic.

nor would i precisely analogise between an inverted image and negative-positive per se, for an inverted image is for me more mutually referential than, say,  cold-warm, which are different QUALITIES as such in a much more significant sense.

i like your point though and find the question very astute.

Years ago, I wondered why we had to take a philosophy class in college.  I’m glad I could retain enough to critique your piece later in life!  Kudos on getting me to read up more on tautology, and all the best in future endeavors.

i should in fact have explained in more detail why opposites such as ‘cold-warm’ must be separated from the dichotomy of the original of an image vs. its negative.

we can imagine, for example, that someone might never have experienced cold. for example, growing up in the desert and never experiencing low temperatures (i know deserts are cold at night, but this is just for example’s sake).

now, had I never experienced cold, I would not simply from my experience of ‘hot’ be able to imagine ‘cold’.

however, if i had never seen a mirror, it is conceivable that I can imagine the concept of a negative image – a mirror-reflected image, that is.

this is because it is simply a linear inversion in relation to the observing subject.

in other words, the orignal vs. negative image is an a priori truth, whereas sensorial dichotomies such as cold-warm are not a priori imaginable.

of course, the postulation of metahpor is not itself a priori activity, since it requires the observation and linking of disparate concepts.

however, the quote is an omniscient one – i.e. purportedly true regardless of whether someone knows of its truth – so I don’t believe the non-a priori nature of metaphorical observations matters in this case.

best,
Oliver