How To Disappear Completely

I completely agree and I completely disagree at the same time. I think its a both/and sort of thing. I think you're right and I think I'm right. I think because sex is a metaphor for everything else, everything else is a metaphor for sex. If A=B, then doesn't B=A? I didn't take logic with Dr. McLelland, so I could be wrong.
And I'm not too sure how I feel about the fact that this blog title will be scotsalumni.org relatively soon.

Thank you for modifying the blog title! :)

This reminds me of something from Alice in Wonderland...
`Exactly so,' said Alice.

`Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on.

`I do,' Alice hastily replied; `at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know.'

`Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. `You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!

Not exactly the same issue here, but it made me laugh.

Maybe an English major should contribute here, but I don't think metaphors are bilateral (i.e. if A=B, then B=A) because they function differently than logic statements. According to Lakoff, at any rate, the source domain helps explain the target domain by highlighting similarities between the familar and the unfamiliar. However, it is rather difficult to explain the familiar in terms of the unfamiliar (to reverse the process). You wouldn't say "The man is a brave lion" and "The brave lion is a man" mean the same thing. The similarities that you are trying to highlight will be slightly different in each case.

Also, with each metaphorical mapping of the source domain onto the target domain, the meaning changes somewhat. Therefore, when someone says "The man's a lion," two metaphorical mappings have occurred. One is the correlation between the physical strength/impressiveness of the lion and the quality of bravery in humans (bravery, requiring a will is NOT an animal attribute, and thus is a metaphorical anthropomorphism, so man=source domain, lion=target domain). Then you map the strength/human bravery you have attributed to the lion back onto the human when you say "That man is a lion!" (lion=source domain, man=target domain). making it a double metaphor. As far as I understand, if A=B in the logical sense, then the double metaphor would be unnecessary. However, "man" in the first comparison is in the general sense, while "man" in the second comparison is specific, so I am getting myself very confused here. I need to reread Lakoff, I'm thinking.

Yep. Shouldn't have asked a double-major. Seeing as I am an English major I shall weigh in further. You are right about the whole metaphor thing. I am mistaken.
However, both statements the Hatter said are true. Alice may not eat EVERYTHING she sees, but she does eat what she sees. What she eats is a subset of what she sees, and thus what she sees is a subset of what she sees. I can't figure out the logic equation of that, but I shall see if I can draw out the diagram in Microsoft and see if I can come up with it there before my head explodes.
If, indeed, Alice In Wonderland is a movie based on a drug and drug-induced hallucinations, then maybe we shouldn't take our logic lessons from there :).
Lakoff, however, may be a better source for this discussion. Too bad I didn't hear of him until reading your comment.

Lakoff is actually more of a linguist/cognitive scientist than a literary writer or philosopher. The book Alice in Wonderland was not inspired by drugs (as far as I can tell) but by attempts to entertain children at Oxford. When an unmarried mathematician tries to tell stories, that is what you get, I guess.

Sarah, your first reply above felt like something from GEB, and its a good reminder of the complexity of language.

Not only is Alice in Wonderland a mathematical tale, its a book that the Queen enjoyed reading, so she requested copies of all Lewis Carrol's other books. Little did she know that she'd receive a stack of mathematical literature.