Stan,

Multe gratias pro tu essayo!

Io ha essayate traducer lo a anglese pro facer lo un pauc plus
accessabile pro omnes non jam avanciate in interlingua.

Que significa "amo"? Amor? (Love?)
Que es le aspecto _post-moderne_ del discurso?

Ecce mi traduction. Correctiones benvenite, Stan!

Today I lectured in a class of rethorics examining the topic of
"objectivity" from a postmodernistic point of view. I wrote in 1995 an
article on this subject in the journal _Philosophy of Science_ (PS)
under the title "The Metaphoric Origins of Objectivity,
subjectivity and Awareness/conscience in the Direct Perception of
the Reality". A very impressive title, right? Actually that was a parody
on a title of a book by Julian Jaynes, "The Origine of Conscience in the
Collapse of the Bicameral/Two Room Mind". My purpose was to discuss his
extremely interesting theme that the conscience is a metaphor, and add
that the idea of objectivity is also a metaphor, which was the theme of
my lecture today.

My argument was that the perception synthesizes the gradients of sensory
stimulation presented to the perceptor either simultaneously or within
very
short time intervals directly to the surfaces and forms of objects in an
extended world.

Moreover, according to the psychologist J. J. Gibson, the perception
involves
simultaneous exteroceptive and proprioceptive processes. The object
cannot
exist without the conscience of the subject. Subject and object are
inseparable views of the same scheme. The objects are invariants in the
perceptual field separated from the effects of the observer in its
behavior,
movements and ways of observing. All senses present information, both
exteroceptive and proprioceptive. Vision for instance presents
information
of the movement of the observer in relation to against or away from an
object, by the expansion or diminution of points on the surfaces of the
object along lines radiating from a point towards or away from the one
which the
the observer moves. When moving the head the object remains in its
position
even if in the visual field it now located in a new position. Meanwhile
the object has moved along lines in the opposite direction of the
movement.
This movement being attributed to the observer (by being coordinated to
the volontary movements and their effect factored to the visual field),
the object is percieved unchanged in its position. The details of this
is
unimportant. What is important is that the process of perceiving an
object
requires simultaneously the perception of the effects of the subject,
the
subject being the observer who's movements and actions explain certain
forms of variation in the visual field independently of the invariants
(non-variation, constance) of the object.

After having acertained this, my following point was that according to
ceretain linguists (George Lakoff) and cognescence scientists, like
Julian
Jaynes, and philosophists like Mark Johnsons, the conceptual thought
is generally extended to new domains by way of meataphors, thus the
metaphor is not only a linguistic phenomenon but conceptual, cognitive
of
(from?) the thought. Jaynes argued that when humans encounter a new
phenomenon, they try to understand it in terms of things familiar to
them
and they project on the new object forms and schemes of old objects
viewed
as similar to the new in certain ways. George Lakoff, linguist from
University of California, argues that the metaphor is a function of
elements from one domain (brought over) to an other. The metaphor
organizes
the new domain by way of a scheme borrowed from the old one.

Thus one might say that the amo? (love) between two persons is like a
journey.
At certain times. Their relation is conceptualized as a journey. At
certain times one could possibly say that the association is ended,
has reached the end of the road. Or, if they persist in travelling the
way they do, they will lose the road and they ought to turn themselves
back to the raight way. Or they will look back and say "Look how far
apart we have become!". Or they might take a decision about the future
and they are at a crossroads, a road crossing the route. They might
possibly walk in different directions after this.

The function between the relation of the amo between the lovers and the
road is very structured. There are ontologic correspondencies, according
to which the entities of the amo domain ( e. g. the love couple, their
common object(ive)s their difficulties, the relation of the amo itself)
corresponds systematically with entities in the travelling domain.

In short:

The function of travel on amo
  The lovers correspond to the travellers
  Their relation of love is the vehicle they carry
  Their common object(ive)s correspond to the destinations of the
journey.
  Difficulties in their association corresponds to hindrances and
obstacles
on their route.
  The resistance of their relation to obstacles is measured by the
distance
travelled.
  etc.

There are many such metaphors and thousands of them have their origin in
schemes from incorporated experience. For instance, there is the scheme
of
the container/jar/can (receptaculo).
This scheme defines the basic distinction between "in" and "out" (or
"from"). We already understand our bodies as containers, because the
most
basic things we do is to ingest and excrete, inhale air and exhale it.
Lakoff notes however that our daily lives is full of experiences that we
experience in container terms; from, in, out of. For example one awakes
FROM one's sleep, gets OUT OF one's stupor and walks IN a daze INTO the
bath room. One takes the toothpaste FROM its tube, puts the toothbrush
into one's mouth, etc.. And consider the numerous words from latin which
have -ex and de- and in- in this sense.

For example one could conceptualize the visual field by using IN and EX
or DE, i. e. the visual field is like a container/jar/can.

"I have him IN my view",  "He is now out of my vision". It is central
in my view. Many occurances are treated metaphorically like receptacles.
I.e. "He is EXcluded from the course". "She is accepted in her
sorority".

Now, to stop this already too long essay, I argue that the scheme of
subject-object of perception becomes itself a metaphor for treating
many conceptual problems in science. The objectivity/objective is not
over the objects for direct perception but concepts merge diverse
experiences and data obtained at different times.

Or in the law the justice (?) tries to make objective judgements.
(O in le lege le judico essaya facer su judicamentos objectivemente.)?

Io ora vade a IMmerger me in le somno.
I now sleepwalk myself to sink ;^)  (A nasty pigeon English translation
by Sigmund).