A great literary critic once wrote that all poetry interpretations are either paraphrase or metaphor (guess which one he preferred). I think this is what the OOO / lavalamp discussion boils down to. If you want to paraphrase science then by all means go with lava lamp materialism. If on the other hand you aspire to more than that, then you must risk metaphor. Of course the paraphrasers will think you are daft. But you think they are merely, well, paraphrasing.
1 comments:
I'd add to your metaphor trope the additional figuration of hyperbole: a mode of metalepsis or transumption that overleaps the bounds - the excess that can only be echoed never trapped within an analytic science or philsophy in any form or fashion...
By the way added a small study of Graham's thoughts on rhetoric and McLuhan to Dark Chemistry
Post a Comment