Search results for 'tag:Metaphors tag:Negatives' matching tags 'Metaphors' and 'Negatives'

Re: create another stir up

Avangi — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:21:55 GMT

In my experience, "stir up" is not a common "compound noun." "Mix up" is, but doesn't fit your application.

The verb usage is much more common. "He stirred up a whole bunch of crap" (pardon the vernacular). "He really stirred something up when he opened this particular can of worms!" (mixed metaphor)

"He really created a buzz" is acceptable, but I don't think it has the negative connotation you're looking for. Buzzes can be good as well as bad.

- A.

Re: 'The meal has hit the spot'

Marius Hancu — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:18:38 GMT

The meal hit a sensitive point, which could be IMO either positive or negative:

Sea Kayaking the British Columbia Coast - Meals

... meals served on our trips are the kind of food that hits that spot that everyone mentions when their meal has hit 'the spot'. Caitlyn does the grocery ...

Mural of Supposed Metaphors: Chapter Twenty Six: Not quite wounded ...

Yes, the only way to gauge if a McD's meal has hit the spot is if your heart starts to hurt. I know my heart was clutching its' heart. ...

Re: a chicken-or-egg thing

Philip — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:46:21 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

Dear friends,

The author was talking about the reason why there are so few women working in the computer game industry:

"It's not so much that women look at the computer game industry and discard the idea of working in it. It's that the computer game industry just never even comes up on their radar. ...

It's a chicken-or-egg thing. If more women were playing games, they might get interested in computer games as a medium and might choose to pursue that as a career. But it's still stigmatized as boy thing."

1)I know "It's that the computer game industry just never even comes up on their radar " means that "the computer game industry hasn't drawn women's attention". But I'm not sure about the figure of speech of "radar" here. Is it a metaphor?

2)I know there is a famous question in philosophy, that is "which is first, the chicken or the egge". But I still can't relate that question to the context. In the context, the author is sure "women playing computer games" will lead to "they work in the field of computer games". It doesn't involve a question. Right?

3)In addtion, what kind of figure of speech is used by using "a chicken-or-egg thing"?

A million thanks.

1) Something like that. It has occured on their "mental screen".

2) I think "chicken-or-egg" is misused here. The question isn't "which came first", but rather the opposite. I'm not sure I can suggest a good replacement. The idea of "viscious circle" (one leading to the other) is the best I can do, but I think that's a little too negative. Catch 22?

Help from others?

Re: What is your favorite hackneyed phrase or cliche that should be be avoided?

Uranicus — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:25:30 GMT

Clive wrote:

Hi,

When I read your list, I'm struck by two things.

1. The metaphors listed by Orwell are certainly taking a long time to die. Most of them are still in wide use today.

2. All of the words he listed as pretentious seem to me, today, to be part of standard English with no negative connotations. Perhaps this evolution may also be true of words we find pretentious today.

Best wishes, Clive

Clive here is the link to Orwell's essay.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

Re: What is your favorite hackneyed phrase or cliche that should be be avoided?

Clive — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:49:41 GMT

Hi,

When I read your list, I'm struck by two things.

1. The metaphors listed by Orwell are certainly taking a long time to die. Most of them are still in wide use today.

2. All of the words he listed as pretentious seem to me, today, to be part of standard English with no negative connotations. Perhaps this evolution may also be true of words we find pretentious today.

Best wishes, Clive

Help for wprd game and poetry

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:39:48 GMT

Dear madam / sir,

Being possessor of an exploitation right concerning an innovating technology of communication described below, I solicit your attention in order to know if any utilization would eventually interest you.

Kind regards,

(letters into brackets are readable with a phonetic font)

The language's way game

Preamble

The phoneme is the smallest unit of pronunciation. As this time is slower than the time of thought, one can introduce some numbers in the communication. We can separate the sounds into two classes : the letters -1 and +1 which symbolize negative and positive, down and up, left and right, female and male, yin and yangâ¦

Because these successions of phonemes have different senses according to the languages, itâs possible to express them simultaneously, in order to add a large number of meanings for the same sound.

1) The phonemes

The international code retained is the following one :

â=1

b baby

c, s price, sense

ci, s, sh, ssi, ti [$] official, sure, fashion, session, emotion

d hard

d, t lacked, toll

e bread

e, ae, ea, ee, ie [i:] theme, paediatric, easy, see, piece

f, ph fire, phonetic

i, y eight, boy

m [m] meat

n nice

p peace

s, z as, zone

v [v] have

y [j] yes

sh [$] shade

th [Î´] that

th think

s, z allusion, seizure

a [eI] take

g, j [dZ] revenge, jug

ch [t$] chain

â=-1

a [@:] ask

a frost

a travel

a, e, o pagoda, the, oâclock

a, o [%:] ball, door

ea, o, u, w learn, how, house, now

g gate

h house

c, k, q , ch neck, king, quarter, ache

i, u [E:]/[U:] bird, nurse

l life

o on

o, u done, but

r [r] root

u, oo [u:] plume, pool

w why

-2

o [&U] no

ai [E&] stair

i, y [aI] I, by

ng [M] during

u [ju] use

x [gs, ks] exact, execute

[â] = H mute

Thanks to this phonetic key, we can get meaningful positive results in all languages. Itâs also possible to add the results of several people in a discussion, or to designate something (3 hours = on the right).

By insisting on a sentenceâs value, we can use many metaphors to designate this/these number(s) to any quantifiable meanings. For instance the hour, position, height, priceâ¦ By extending the other meanings (or degrees) of languages can be called words, jokes, and sound, air, wind, life, clothes and so on according to the given cases. Now you can read between the lines.

Example of utilization :

-Wake up !

[weIk ^p] = 0 and is the absolutely same phonetic as âway cupâ or âway upâ where can be âquââ = âonlyâ in French.

Even if people canât see all the possible meanings, they may understand the original one and their research promises a lot of dreams and motivation. Itâs necessary to be careful, human language includes tons of anagrams and other stylistic devices.

Anybody might at one given moment, from a certain number of sentences, recover the private written key of a person (which must be complementary to the international phonetic one).

Example to give the result of three keyâs sentences :

To do zeal I ate the large dose. [tu: du: zi:l aI eIt D& l@g d&Us] = 4.

= beware of the for numbers : two [tu:] + douze [duz] (French twelve) + eight [eIt] + dos [d%s] (Spanish two).

The mathematic operators broached in this document are :

For and : French et , Italian e , Spanish y , Russian a and Ð¸

For or : French ou , Spanish and Italian o , Russian Ð¸Ð»Ð¸ [ili]

Furthermore we can propose the following grid to communicate a lot of data through spellings and numbers :

A [eI] : one + est et [e e] (âis andâ in French) + e (âand in Italian) + he (âI haveâ in Spanish) + (âandâ in Spanish and Russia) + written A = âhasâ in French + âatâ in Spanish and Italian + âandâ in Russian.

B [bi:] : be + vi [bi] = âI sawâ in Spanish.

C [si:] : see + sea + å [sÃ¬] (âfourâ in Chinese) + si (âifâ in French) + si (âyesâ in Spanish and Italian)

D [di:] : di (âI gaveâ in Spanish) + âdiâ (âsayâ in Spanish) + dis (âsayâ in French) + di (âofâ for belonging in Italian) + die [di] (âtheâ for feminine plural in German)

E [i:] : I + Italian e i + French est et + Spanish he y (by this way the sound âiâ could become a new pronoun composed of English I + Spanish y + Italian i = I + the and).

F [ef] : French âfÃ©e faitâ = fairy does + Spanish âfeâ = faith

G [dZi:] : French [Ze] â [ZE] = jâai

H [eIt$] : ate eight + chez [$e] {âfromâ or âatâ somebodyâs place in French}

I [aI] : I + ahÃ [a'i] (= there in Spanish)

J [dZeI] : D + jâai + A

K [keI] : que [ke] = relative pronoun who/what in Spanish + A

L [el] : Ã©l [el] = âheâ in Spanish + elle les [El le] = âshe theâ for plural in French (â+â)

M [em] : aime [Em] mais [mE] = âlove butâ in French.

N [en] : en = âinâ in Spanish.

O [&U] : Spanish and Italian o, and have also the same spelling in French, Spanish and Italian : , which is the pronunciation of âhoâ = âI haveâ in Italian, and the exact sound of âeauâ (= âwaterâ in French) and âauâ (= âat theâ in French). And yet weâve just seen that this letter and its sounds has been considered as feminine, so weâve got either the meanings of âI, woman, have water at the orâ (âwaterâ spelled in French as [watEr] could become [wAt] âwhatâ + [Er] French âairâ = âwhat air ?â) or âI have feminine sentences or objectsâ or âI or a woman haveâ or âI, not a woman, haveâ and so on.

P [pi:] : pi.

Q [kju:] : = quâ = âonlyâ in French + you (Italian i + French ou).

R [@:r] : art [ar] = âartâ in French + âR her airâ ( â) spelled in French [Er Er Er] and âer airâ (â) : er [e:r] = âheâ in German, and âaire et Ã¨reâ [Er e Er] (âarea and eraâ in French

S [es] : est-ce [Es] = âisâ in the French questions + es = âitâ in German + es = âisâ in Spanish + ess (âessenâ = âto eatâ in German, and its radical turned in an English conjugation gives âthey essâ)

T [ti:] : ÑÑ [ti] =âyouâ in Russian + ti [ti] = âyouâ in complement in Spanish and Italian + tea.

U [ju:] : you.

V [vi:] : vis vie= â(I/you) saw lifeâ in French + wie = âhow/asâ in German + Ð²Ñ [vi] = âyouâ in plural in Russian.

W [âd^blju] : ***.

X [iks] : anonymous.

Y [waI] : why [waI] ?

Z [zed,zi] : the [Di:] + in German : Sie [zi:] = âpolite youâ + sie =âshe/theyâ.

1 [w^n] : won

2 [tu:] : tout [tu] (= âallâ in French) + too to + tu [tu] (= âyouâ in Spanish and Italian)

3 [Tri:] : T+H+R+E+E + riz ris = ârice laughâ in French.

4 [f%:r] : for [f%:r] or + Ohr [o:r] = âearâ in German.

5 [faIv] : hive + fa (âhe doesâ in Italian) + faille faille [faj] = âfault needâ in French.

6 [sIks] : C + X.

7 [sevn] : sais ses câest ces [se se se se] (= âknow his/her/its itâs theseâ in French) â say + V +N.

8 [eIt] : ate At.

9 [naIn] : N ein nein [naIn naIn] = N âone noâ in German.

10 [ten] : ten = âhaveâ in Spanish + tN.

2) Examples of interpretations

Mother, father, brother, sister =[âm^D&r âbr^D&r] = -3.

M + other + fa = âhe doesâ in Italian + bR [ber] ver = âto seeâ in Spanish + other + si = âyesâ in Spanish and Italian + ist = âisâ in German + [&r] â heure [CR] = âhourâ in French.

Free school called home. = - 5Â°

= freeze cool called old cold + (= au = âat theâ in French) + home.

One two three four. = 0

= without H it wonât be too tree for air.

Easy to do.

[i:zi tu du] = 3

it is easy to sit on this sit where you can see the sea + 2 + du [du:] (âyouâ in German) + do + doux dâou dâoÃ¹ [du du du] (âsoft from or + from whereâ in French).

Each one possesses its own style of communication, but some meanings being contradictory within one expression, we can choose to underline some of them by the written and/or phonetic context. Moreover it could be judicious to marry the languages which countryâs names bring some supplementary senses :

Come on itâs not so far. = 2.

= (= quâ = âonlyâ in French, this country name partially spelled in French could become fREnch [fEren$] = fair + en {= âinâ Spanish} + chez in French), so overall, weâve got = âonly in fair fromâ) + komm [k%m] (to come in German = âkommenâ) + homme [%m] (= man in French) + home + Mo (= [Emo] = aime mot(s) = âlove word(s)â in French) + money + oÐ½ [on] (âheâ in Russian) neat on eat it is not naughty (no T) knot Not [no:t] (= distress in German) + note of + Italian fa + fahr [fa:r] (âto driveâ in German = âfahrenâ) + sofa so far + phare [faR] (âlighthouseâ and âlampâ in French).

He talks about the bad weather by the past, and explains his belief in teaching. = 1 + 15 = 16

= he + ÑÃ³Ð»ÑÐºÐ¾ [tolka] (= âonlyâ in Russian) toll out of a cab, bad way sir, buy the path + stA = [steI] = stay, index plain is bull leaf fine + ä¸ [it$] (= âoneâ in Japanese) each + itch + hitch.

This week is filled. = 6

= this weak wick, kiss, feel viel [fi:l] (= âplenty ofâ in German) fils [fil] (= âthreadâ in French) + fee + fient fis [fi fi] (= âthey trusted + I/you didâ, without their pronouns in French) + number six => sentence filled of âIâ.

To close that pathetic door, you know that. = -1+ 0 = -1

= took hook, clothe hat, at path attic door + dâor (= âof goldâ in French) + German Ohr + or you nose at.

Because the boat of hundred feet of length still operate now. = [bI'kAz D& b&Ut Av h^ndr&d fi:t Av le1(k)T Ap&reIt stIl naU] = 7 or 8 ?

= Spanish vi + cause + causent eux, osent bottes [koz G oz& b%t] (= âthey talk, dare bootsâ in French) of fun off un- + (D [de] spelled in French + red =) dare + head aide (= âhelpâ in French) + fit feat it still steal steel + âstiel still stilâ (= âstalk calm styleâ in German) + o (= or in Spanish) + fell hope air rate eight ate = 8 (number of the rate).

The army has begun there. = 1

= arm (= âpoorâ in German) arm harm arm me, the army, big gun un-, in the air at the second floor.

Take the steering wheel. = 4

= T ([te] in French like tes = your {+ plural}, or tâes = you are) + ache + steer + ST (which spelled in French [Este] could mean âesteâ = âthis oneâ in Spanish) + ear + will (modal/want) + wheel (could symbolise 0 or O).

= you will take the wheel (proper and figurate), listen because you have acheâ¦

This mill makes good flour. = 2 [tu:] (= to)

= The smile ill + M ([Em] = aime = âloveâ in French) + Ã®le il (= âisland heâ in French) + il (= âtheâ in masculine in Italian) + the millâs meal may in may + goÃ»t dâ [gu d] (= âtaste ofâ in French) + flower [âflaU&r] (exactly the same English phonetic as flour).

During the game, make it with proficiency. = 3 + 9 = 12.

= Dur (= âhardâ in French) ring, the gay aim may + ma (= âbutâ in Italian) + [ki t] (by spelling the âTâ in French weâve got = qui tâes = âwho are youâ in French) + we + P (= [pe] spelled in French, so it could give : [pE] = paie = âpayâ in French + [pER] pÃ¨re = âfatherâ in French, perd = âlooseâ in French, pair = peer in French, [âpero] pero = âbutâ in Spanish + fit [fi] = made in French => but the father peer lost the made + (un- + si = âifâ in French => not if.

The tale of the fine daring sheep which bit a knee on a beach =17.

= the tale of love, the tail of the sheep [$i] + fine = âthinâ in French + fine (ticket) dare ring + written dar = âto giveâ in Spanish + cheap [t$i] cheep [t$i] / chip [t$Ip] / ship [$Ip] + which + beat [bi:t] a bit [bIt] beet [bi:t] + French nis nid [ni ni] = âdeny nestâ + ni = âtwoâ in Chinese and Japanese + knee on a â eux = âthemâ in French = > the knees + bi (two) + beech [bi:t$] + *** [bIt$].

From the plane it could seem invisible =12.

From homme = âmanâ in French + home the plain (obvious) plane (tree) plane (map) neat could + coude [kud] cou = âelbow neckâ in French + seem + cime [sim] = âpeak, topâ in French + in V + vise [viz] = âaim atâ in French + I + bL [bEl] (L spelled in French) = beautiful on the feminine gender + twelve = to L + V spelled in French = [ve] â [vE] = vais = âI goâ in French.

They said that the camera saw the suite without the mattress = 8.

[esE] = âtestingâ in French + sed sed sede [seD seD âseDe] = âbe thirst seatâ on the second person of plural imperative present in Spanish + s'aide = âhelp him/her/itself or themselvesâ in French + head + camera = âbedroomâ in Italian + saw (tool) sweet with how T the M at + matt mat (dark carpet) + Ð¼Ð°ÑÑ [mat] = âmotherâ in Russia + tress.

Close ! The weather would provoke some leaks on the vice = -2 + 2 = 0.

Close [kl&Us] (near) close [kl&Uz] (end) clothe [kl&UD] + weather whether (either) wether (sheep) ['weD&r 'weD&r 'weD&r] wood PRV âOKâ some lick [lIk] leek [li:k] + weiÃ weiÃ [vaIs vaIs] = âknow whiteâ in German + vice (instead of) vice (fault).

At the bottom we can see the child = 4.

At the bottom + homme beau Ã´te bottes [%m bo ot b%t]= âbeautiful man removes bootsâ in French + weak week see the shield [$i:ld].

The police in the centre = 5.

a = = eux (them in French) => here a singular article (for a subject) is used with the plural conjugation of the French spelling of police : [p%lis] = also polissent = they âpolishâ + seen scene + cÑÐ½ = âsonâ in Russian + sin = âwithoutâ in Spanish + sin + the [&s] â [^s] âusâ + enter.

3) Applications

3.1) Board game

With the help of this technology, everybody can play a game which for a given question, accepts several answers. In case of litigation it will be sufficient to record the playâs minutes to overrule competitors. The winner is the first who has his answers right in the imposed theme, while respecting the exact phonetics or spelling of the language used.

Of course the different possible themes are not quantifiable : "country => associated lexical fields", "country = > elements of this country" (rivers, mountainsâ¦) for beginners, and then "country = > capital", "country = > presidentââ¦

Example : âWe can add an additional destination in our travel.â

The player answers : âOh no, itâs hot, awash and deserted.â

Thanks to the underlined link, the answer could allow the player to play again, and his movement is defined by the following sum :

[&U n&U it s hAt &'wA$ Gnd dI'zU:tId] = +3.

The board is round, players win a certain number of points. The different slots of it represent the themes, and the use of homonyms must be expressed solely by the player who is the master of his movement.

Examples of question :

Itâs well on donât go in this district.

=> Because itâs belongs to the barbarian you knighted king, domestic problem it is.

Where can I rush a pursued man ?

=> Over there are moss, cows and nobody to find him.

Did you see his pain ?

=> Yes he was the mad reader.

3.2) The languages school

The languages school is intended to become a didactic software including a data base regrouping the maximum languages. This new type of dictionary is going to become necessary to communicate as described in the first chapter. Moreover itâs a pity that no actual dictionary groups all whatâs essential together : the tonic accent and phonetic of every words (conjugated verbs), all definitions with the maximum multilingual translations, reseach of proverbs, the whole with a phonetic and written research key, and a link for any bilateral update on the Internet.

After the launch of the application, a customizable menu will propose the following choices :

- Translation / Definition

First it will be necessary to choose an origin language and a certain number of destinations with the help of an unwinding menu. Then the interface will adopt the outgoing language that will remain in memory.

To get the definition and translation in the wanted languages, enter a part of a word or any phonetic in the interactive window, or select a term from the list of outgoing language, automatically updated in real time, according to the level of the letters previously entered.

Example : the user will enter in the first column âlighâ and select "light", so the columns of right will let appear the words of the languages translated.

Search English French German

ligh | Light: n â¦ Clair : adj â¦ Erleuchtung : nf ...

Lighten : v â¦ Leger : adj ... Leuchte : nf ...

Lighter : n ... LumiÃ¨re : nf â¦ Licht: nnâ¦.

By selecting a second time one of the words appeared, its definition will be displayed then on full screen in its language. With phonetic and followed by synonyms.

Then two options will be available : come back on the previous page thanks to the history of the software, or select the word in progress so it becomes the word to translate of the outgoing language.

Rechercher FranÃ§ais Anglais Allemand

LumiÃ¨re LumiÃ¨re : nf â¦ Light : n â¦ Erleuchtung : nf

Lighten : v â¦ Leuchte : nf â¦

Lighter : n ... Licht: nnâ¦.

The user will be able to modify the languages columns at any time :

Search English French Spanish

Light Light: n â¦ Clair : adj â¦ Genio: nm ...

Lighten : v â¦ Leger : adj ... Luminare: nm ...

Lighter : n ... LumiÃ¨re : nf â¦ Luce: nf ...

Phonetic example :

Search French English German

lu | Loup : nm. Lubricant : n, adj ... Lud: v ...

Louable : adj ... Lubricate : v â¦ Luder : nn â¦

... â¦ â¦

It will be also interesting to be able to find examples of a pronunciation, getting a list of all words containing for example /A/.

- Translation of texts and expressions

The application will be able to interpret some expressions according to the context, even also translate any whole file, and eventually add a tool bar in texts softwares, in order to assist document writes.

Besides an option "Sentenceâs totals" would be put up-to-date in real time, according to the selected communication codes (12 maximum).

It will depend on the flexibility of the software to give the spoonerisms, anagrams and palindromes or any other hidden meanings of words.

Otherwise, a system of multilingual lexical fields printing, with possibilities of any adaptation on poster format, wallpaper or a worldâs map with one word per country, could be proposed.

To provide the most possible complete application, a speech recognition mode is also to study.

A camera (on glasses) scrutinizing the reader's eyes could permit the navigation after focusing the look of the user.

- Coding functions

* Define some communication codes

To create a code as in the chapter one, enter the wanted languages and a variable defined part of the alphabet letters, the application will propose a viable solution.

Some other encryptions could be available like the for instance the replacement of the whole letters by others in a text, with possibility to send the code grid by e-mail.

* Recover a code

In keyboarding or joining a text, the application would be able to extract all possible codes used by the creator, with or without a given public encryption key.

Re: GOOSE BUMPS

Goodman — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:48:25 GMT

1. You're darn right.

I believe the phrase is âyou are damned rightâ. Itâs a phrase with a negative connotation which means you are agreeing with someoneâs question in a sarcastic may. Itâs not a polite phrase to use in a normal setting.

2. - The manager promised she would fix the door, but now she's not here yet.

- That's outrageous! I just don't understand why she's not on top of this.

- What does "she's not on top of this" mean here?

It means to pay close attention or follow up closely.

- Yeah! if you're a penguin. Just look at me!Even my goose bumps have goose bumps.

- What does "even my goose bumps have goose bumps" mean here?

When itâs really frigidly cold, our skinâs pores tightened up and become âgoose bumpsâ

Itâs using metaphor to say something in a humorous way. In your context, itâs so cold that even goose bumps have goose bumps.

grammatical check

Murajica — Fri, 12 May 2006 02:19:51 GMT

Dear Members!

I am a new member and I would need some urgent academic help. Tomorrow i have to submit an essay for my postgraduate study. as Slovenian I am not sure if everything is in order in the essay. I attached the essay in this message. If anybody would consider looking into my essay I would be more then glad about that.

Introduction

This essay represents a possible answer to the question of the transforming the form of power from classical physical, person-to-person alike configurations to the new formation of ubiquitous - virtual â power. In contemporary society the classical Benthamâs idea of Panopticon has been employed to society as an âElectronic Panopticonâ wherein government agencies, commercial interests and corporations use information technologies to sort people into âgroupsâ or âtypesâ. Supervisors exert power over the supervised in some manner or other (King 2001). As some authors still interpret Western society with the few-watch-many panopticon model, called as exclusionary fortress (King 2001), others are more focused on many-watch-few the Synopticon model (Bauman 1998). Yet, essay examines the similarities and differences of those two models, with an additional consideration to a hybrid model of the superpanopticism.

Why is than that this utilitarian two hundred years old idea of panopticon survived and extended in to new â hybrid â forms? This essay provides also the retrospective of the development of the power and public surveillance from the panoptic initial idea till nowadays electronic global power.

The spread of globalization and electronic era brought new technologies in everybodyâs everyday life. Over all, I should repeat the questions raised by Lyon (1994) whether do those new technologies spell a qualitatively new surveillance? If so, does this add up to the emergence of a more authoritarian, prison-like society? I conclude with the question if this is really prison-like society for everybody or only for non reluctant citizen. Therefore, is the new society really the limited society? Do we as contemporary residents have lack of opportunities and live in virtual cells or are we all just blinded and idled of all opportunities?

But again, what about the residents of the non-western, âunderdevelopedâ world â under what source and type of the surveillance do they live and what is their opportunity of resistance when they choose to âenterâ the West â so called surveillance society. What does it mean to shift the âreal jungleâ with the âmanufactured jungleâ?

From Panopticon to Synopticon

Todayâs society is often called as surveillance society. Many consider contemporary society as Post-Panopticon society, as a copy of initial idea of the total, the 360 degree surveillance area.

In the eighteen century a British reformer Jeremy Bentham presented the blueprint of optimal surveillance object called the Panopticon. This rounded structure with the watch tower in the axis of circle gives the gatekeeper/supervisor the ability to see all without being seen; ultimately it gives the keeper the ability to exert power over the inmates. Primary, it was meant to revolutionise the way in which prisons were administrate (King 2001). âThere were no more bars, no more chains, no more heavy locksâ¦â (Foucault 1991: 202)

In the Panopticon, the peripheral mass cannot see the observers, and must assume that someone may be watching over them at all time (Boyne 2000). One of the most influential theoretic of the philosophy of Panopticon, Michael Foucault describes it as a machine for dissociating the see/being seen dyad. In the ring, one is totally seen, without ever seeing, when on the other side in the core tower, one sees everything without ever being seen (Foucault 1991). Another weighty sociologist Zygmunt Bauman foremostly sees Panopticon as a weapon against difference, choice and variety (1998). In this point, we can presume that Panopticon is really an opposite idea of democracy. But, as we will see latter, many connect the panopticism with the Western democratic society. Bauman further claims that âThe Panopticonâs main purpose was to install discipline and to impose a uniform pattern on the behaviour of its inmates.â (Bauman 1998:50)

A pictorial description of original Benthamâs Panopticon was provided by Foucault, describing it as an architectural figure of this composition. He describes the principle on which it was based:

ââ¦at the periphery, an annular building; at the centre, tower. A watchtower is pierced with wide windows that open onto inner side of the ring. The peripheral building is divided into cells, each of which extends the whole width of the building. They have two windows, one on the inside, corresponding to the windows of the tower; the other, on the outside, allows the light to cross the cell from one end to other. All that is needed, than, is a supervisor in a central tower and to shut up in each cell a madman, a patient, a condemned man, a worker or a school boy.â (Foucault 1991: 200)

While poignant, the architecture of Foucaultâs version of Benthamâs Panopticon produces a kind of double vision; two different, divergent stories of the development of evidently modern relations of surveillance, domination and control. Firstly, the story of what goes on with the supervisor or inspector in the central tower and secondly what happens to the person in the cell. The tale of the supervisor takes us to the techniques of observation, information gathering, data management, simulation and to (what Foucault later describes as) âa biopolitics of the populationâ (Simon 2005). George Orwell (1984 in Simon 2005:4) precisely describes the effect as a result of Panopticon:

âThere was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the timeâ¦ You had to live â did live, from habit that became instinct â in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every moment scrutinized.â

The Panoptic machine makes one visible and at the same time it hides the operations (motives, practice, and ethics) of the supervisor. This relation (being seen without being able to see) provides uncertainty which become a source of anxiety, discomfort and even terror (Simon 2005).

In The Panopticon also the observers were under possible control, it may ever provide an apparatus for supervising its own mechanisms. (Foucault 1991)

One of the important deficiencies of the Panopticon model was exposed by Simon (2005). Though, the Panopticon makes all acts in principle visible in cannot distinguish between acts that conform to the rules and acts which pretend co conform to the rules. Nevertheless, the idea of Panopticon is not always the optimal explanation for the role of power in the modern society. Although, as we will se latter, we can easily name modern public sphere with Foucaultian expression âlaboratory of powerâ, has the contemporary society mirrored the sight to the surveillance. The supervision of the few watching the many has turned to the many watching the few.

Reading with Foucault rather than against him Mathesion (in Simon 2005) theorizes a role for the synoptic machine of the contemporary culture industries; accounted for by the critical theory tradition. By the critics like Mathesion and Baudrillard the individualâs relation to the modern media is rather synoptic than panoptic; the relation is extremely visual, where the many (an audience) observe the few (the television programme). But yet we can argue, that provided synoptic apparatus is in tight symbiosis with the panoptic. But one can at this point draw on media theory and argue that synoptic function of the media is the production of homogenous knowledge and wide spread culture (ibid.).

At this point in the theory, the Synopticon emerged as the hybrid version of the Panopticon. Thomas Mathiesen coined the memorial phrase, where the introduction of panoptical power represented a fundamental transformation from situation where the few watch the many to a situation where the many watch the few (Bauman 1998). Bauman (1998) further adds that Synopticon is in its nature global. The watchers are united from their locality and at least spiritually they are transported into cyberspace. Distance no longer matters, even if bodily they remain in place. Globalization is not about what we all wish or hope to do, it is about what happening in the worldwide level, it is about what is happening to all of us (ibid.). It does not matter any more if the targets of the Synopticon mutated from the watched into the watchers stay in the place or move around the globe. And who are the new watched population at whom Synopticon âaim its arrowsâ?

âThe many watch the few. The few who are watched are the celebrities. They may come from the world of politics, of sport, of science or show business, or just be celebrated information specialists. Wherever they come from, though, all displayed celebrities put on display the world of celebrities â a world whose main distinctive feature is precisely the quality of being watched â by many, and in all corners of the globe: of being global in their capacity of being watched.â (Bauman 1998:53)

The main difference by the word of Bauman (1998) is that Panopticon forced people into the position where they could be watched, but Synopticon on the other hand needs no coercion. People are seduced into watching and the watched few are tightly selected. Surveillance and consecutively the power are therefore spreading among all of us. We-as the audience are all the part of Synopticon and therefore we are all in the possession of power. We have the possibility to survey and the possibility to be a part of the apparatus. The fictive power is dividing from our television receiver to yours receiver. The power and the surveillance are spreading through the signals, networks and internet connections and they are imaginatively connecting us. Ultimately, we are all part of the game of surveillance, gathered in the electronic arena, where in a fictive menagerie we watch over the selected few. We are covetous for their private life. Their privacy is our required publicity.

The development of new technologies and new techniques of power, consist â on the contrary â in the many watching the few. That is shown in the rise of mass media â television more than any other. That leads to the creation, alongside the Panopticon, of another power mechanism which, coining another apt phrase â Synopticon (Bauman 1998).

History review of surveillance and power

Lyon (1994) sets out as prominent work about surveillance two main traditions the Marxian and the Weberian. Karl Marxâs special attention on surveillance is in aspect of the struggle between labour and capital, where worker is viewed as a means of maintaining managerial control on behalf of capital. Opposite, Max Webber concentrates on the manners that all modern organizations develop means of storing and retrieving data in the form of files as part of the quest of efficient practice within bureaucracy. Such files contain personal information so that government can supervise population. Furthermore, we should opt on Foucaultâs contribution to surveillance theory. He claims that modern societies have introduced and employed a range of disciplinary practices rather than relaying on external controls and constrains. This practice is necessary for life to continue in a regularized patterned way. (Lyon 1994)

For Foucault (1991) the panopticism is the general principle of new political elites, who use it as a relation of discipline and not the relation of sovereignty. He sees the idea of panopticism have spread over the globe:

ââ¦although the universal juridicism of modern society seems to fix limits on the exercise of power, its universally widespread panopticism enables it to operate, in the underside of the law, a machinery that is both immense and minute, which supports, reinforces, multiplies the asymmetry of power and undermines the limits that are traced around the law. /â¦/ in the genealogy of modern society, they have been, with the class domination that traverses it, the political counterpart of the juridical norms according to which power is redistributed. (Foucault 1991: 223)

Governments in 1960s and 1970s developed large-scale date integration projects, which had raised the fear of the omniscient âBig Brotherâ state. In that time individuals knew when data about them, and for whom and for what reason had been collected. Surveillance systems at that time were discrete and bounded. The concept of databanks expressed a technological and political reality that personal information system had some clear boundaries (Bennett 2001). 1970s were also the time of Orwellian Big Brother states.â This position might be contrasted with that of Lyon (1994) who kept the Orwellian nightmare of 1984 at bay with a Foucauldian emphasis on discipline but has moved on (Lyon, 2001) to incorporate some of the arguments about risk society from Beck.â (Lyon, 2001:10-113).

Anthony Giddens (in Lyon 1994) describes some differences of surveillance in the western societies and the surveillance in the totalitarian eastern block. He finds a gap distinction between surveillance as âgathering data onâ and âsupervisingâ people. Giddens claims that totalitarianism is, first of all, an extreme focusing of surveillance (ibid.). But the changes in the political systems, the global technological progress and above all the globalization changed the rules. To conquer and survey the world, one does not need to be present in all places for all the time.

âIn the world we inhabit, distance does not seem to matter much. Sometimes it seems that it exists solely in order to be cancelled; as if space was but a constant invitation to slight it, refute and deny. Space stopped being an obstacle â one needs just a split second to conquer it.â (Bauman 1998:77)

In fact, as Kavanagh (1996 in Bauman 1998) stated, globalization is a paradox. While it is very beneficial to a very few, it leaves out or marginalizes two-thirds of the world.

Latest surveillance studies have gone further than Foucault in demonstrating new data collection with sophisticated, yet manipulated forms to alter, manage or even control the live chances of the supervised person (Gandy 1993). As an example Simon (2005) proposes census data, used to generate profiles of various populations to guide the development of government policies, which have further define effects on persons, independent of their knowledge. Only a step away is insurance data, credit information, marketing data etc. In all this cases, data obtained from people is managed independently and used to structure the lives of those people.

New forms of surveillance

As we see, in the contemporarily people are facing the paradoxical situation, where everybody can be the object of observation and simultaneously the subject that execute the surveillance. The strength of the surveillance is taking away our privacy; it prevails into ours most intimate moment and places. The systems of surveillance possess the power for assembling and finally to assemble all needed information that we have ever put into the circulation. Our credit card or post code of our home address, calls made from the mobile and even type of food that we buy in our favourite shop with our favourite club card all tell more about us than we would at anytime wanted to be known. In the traditionally disciplinary the object of surveillance was the body but in âdataveillanceâ the object of control is simply the digital representation of the body (Simon 2005). Huge data collection systems connected to each other also support each other with the latest information about us and use us and information about us as crucial capital and power.

âNo one is spying on us, exactly, although for many people that is what it feels like if and when they find out just how detailed a picture of us is available. âTheyâ know things about us, but we often donât know what they know, why they know, or with whom else they might share their knowledge.â (Lyon 1994:4)

Dataveillance (the collection, organization and storage of information about persons) and biometrics (the use of the body as a measure of identity) have not only come into focus with the post 9/11 security consciousness of state institutions. These technologies are now becoming a regular feature of the everyday lives and culture of citizens. (Simon 2005)

Deluze (1992 in Simon 2005:17) for example claims that in societies of control what is important is no longer either a signature or a number, but a code â the code is a password and it stand in for bodies. He remarks âthe numerical language of control is made of codes that mark access to information, or reject it. We no longer find ourselves dealing with the mass/individual pair. Individuals have become âdividualsâ and masses, samples, data, markets or âbanksâ.â We can support the Deluzeâs idea with a claim that societies have shifted from disciplinary societies to societies of control. This idea parallels the critiques of panopticism, which point to a shift away from classical visual surveillance to dataveillance as a mode of ordering information. Clark (1988 in Howard et al. 2005:69) coined the term dataveillance to signify âthe systematic use of personal data systems in the investigation or monitoring of the actions or communications of one or more personsâ in an effort to analyze the potential for new digital technologies to allow âincreased surveillance of the citizen by the state, and the consumer by the corporation.â

Simon (2005) claims, that the surveillance apparatus does not act on bodies or minds but on information about them. Thus, we can say that dataveillance corresponds to the modulatory effects of power, as it is described by Deleuze (1992 in Simon 2005:15):

âthe image of a city âwhere one would be able to leave oneâs apartment, oneâs street, oneâs neighbourhood, thanks to oneâs âdividual electronic card that raises a given barrier; but the card could just as easily be rejected on a given day or between certain hours; what counts is not the barrier but the computer that tracks each personâs position â licit or illicit â and effects a universal modulationâ.

Poster (1992) explains the shift to control societies in terms of the superpanopticism. He argues that, it does not operate through external force or expected internal norms but rather in terms of discourse and the linguistic properties of digital computation. The electronic database is the core of the superpanopticon, it is a sorting machine that organizes and produces subjects. As David Lyon summarizes:

the subject is multiplied and decentred in the database, acted on by remote computers each time a record is automatically verified or checked against another, without ever referring to the individual concerned /â¦/ computers become machines for producing retrievable identities (Lyon 2001: 115).

Poster (1992??preveri ker spodaj maÅ¡ 1996) writes about new forms of power where the unwanted surveillance of personal choice becomes a discursive reality through the willing participation of the surveilled individual. In this instance the play of power and discourse is uniquely configured. The one being surveilled provides the information necessary for surveillance.

The diagram of superpanopticism is not a diagram of surveillance in the traditional sense, no one is watching us and we do not perceive ourselves as being watched. We simply go about our business while our databased selves are assembled, scrutinized and evaluated in much more detail than the inmates at Foucaultâs Mettray prison ever experienced (ibid.).

At the same time we allow the surveillance as we are part of surveillance society â where for exchange of our information we can be part of âthe manyâ that watch âthe fewâ. We live in the Panopticon but at the same time we participate and even with ease enjoy the Synopticon. Foucaultâs version of Benthamâs plan has been upgraded, so that the inmate is aware of the gaze of the supervisor through signs of their presence. This is initially ominous tower with its shielded windows signifying the presence of the guards, but it could also easily be the insidious sign of the CCTV camera or the spy satellite as material extensions of the human eye (Simon 2005).

However, it is the sign of presence of surveillance and not its actual presence that matters here. Yet we can say that this is what makes possible to substitute fake supervisor (cameras) for real ones and still achieve the same effects of power and domination. (Norris 2003). Or as Foucault (1991:200) claims âvisibility is a trap.â

Lyon (1994) claims that interesting challenge to surveillance studies presented by processes such as computer-matching is than an essentially technical procedure contribute to the blurring of conventionally conceived boundaries.

King (2001) asserts that Panopticon is still a useful metaphor for the examination of the world we live in and as well understanding of its history and how it is mirrored in nowadays Western society.

It is on this point that the critique of Foucault takes on its strongest form. As Anthony Giddens (1990) has noted, modern surveillance can be denoted by increasing distances between the observer and the observed. So can we ultimately find the connections between the initial Panopticon prison idea and modern surveillance society? Following Gary Marx (1988 in Simon 2005) we can extrapolate from guards in the watchtower to some hi-tech management and policing systems: a kind of prototypical hybrid-police-cyborg using progressively more sophisticated technical capacity for monitoring (CCTV, infrared cameras, electronic tags), data storage (huge hard drives systems), networking (data conversion) and analysis (systems capable of advanced pattern recognition and multivariate sorting) (ibid.).

Particular forms of communication are vital aspects of what it means to be human. What we disclose to whom, and under what conditions, is highly significant. What once we might have revealed, consciously, about ourselves to someone we trust â friend, doctor, priest, therapist â may now be involuntarily disclosed by electronic means to organizations or machines that we cannot know, let alone trust, in the same way (Lyon 1994).

âPrecise details of our personal lives are collected stored, retrieved and processed every day within huge computer databases belonging to big corporations and government departments. This is âsurveillance societyâ.â (Lyon 1994:3)

An interesting comparison with the new Lyonâs surveillance society was a lot earlier provided by Foucault, when he talked about the power of the Panopticon. He considers the activity of the Panopticon also as a kind of laboratory of power. Because of its mechanisms of observation, it gains in efficiency and in the ability to penetrate into menâs behaviour; knowledge follows the advances of power, discovering new objects of knowledge over all the surfaces on which power is exercised (Foucault 1991). Introducing the Panopticon into the contemporary society, we can understand the present public sphere â surveyed, tracked and surrounded with the linked apparatuses filled with data of citizens as a huge laboratory of virtual power.

For Mark Poster the post-modern is classified as a âmode of informationâ. He raises the question of location of human self if fragments of personal data constantly circulate within computer systems, beyond any agentâs personal control. (Lyon 1994)

Further, for Bauman (1998), then, the dream of total control, exemplified by the Panopticon, is really fully applicable only within a âclockworkâ society, whose inhabitants are required to have fixed places, functions and appetites. âAdvanced Westernâ societies are not like this. On the other hand, for the inhabitants of the first world state borders are levelled down, as they are dismantled for the worldâs commodities, capital and finances. But for the inhabitant of the second world, the walls built of immigration controls, of residence laws, and of âclean streetsâ and âzero toleranceâ policies, grow taller. (Bauman 1998)

My thesis and conclusion

The provided literature and shown examples have, therefore, made a systematic case in support of the proposition that technology and advance have made possible the systems of domination and power, especially virtual apparatus to supervise with supremacy over the people of postmodernity. As power is indeed strongly roped with forms of technology, it is possible to agree that power is nowadays virtual in form, with âsurveillance /â¦/, as an institutionally central and pervasive feature of social lifeâ¦â (Lyon 1994:24)

In fact, it is interesting to accept the fact that new virtual forms of information technology are constructing society as well physically (modern surveillance systems) as also socially (changing of public behaviour, new ways of pleasure and voyeurism â when many watch the few, or surveillance for pleasure, etc.). Although, it is significant to point out that in contemporary society â as Anthony Giddens called it with felicitous phrase, a âmanufactured jungleâ no physical presence of âanotherâ is needed to perceive his influential power and surveillance; no matter what place or what moment in the society do we take into consideration.

The power of supervision has developed in recent years with the speed of the development of science and technology. With introduction of new â especially virtual technology apparatuses, one is becoming even more âthe objectâ of observation and surveillance. Discrepancy between private â intimate side of life and the public access to oneâs personal matters has blurred to the degree, where one can no more foresight when, how and by who is observed at the particular moment. Yet, I could agree with intimidated and tighten theories of âtotal disclosureâ proposed by theoretic of surveillance (Orwell, Lyon, Foucault, etc.), where apparatus of the state, economic and media govern its population in the scheme of matrix. Individual can be metaphorical staged with the famous Foucaultian quote:

âHe is seen, but he does not see he is the object of information, never a subject in communication.â (Foucault 1991: 200)

One has no more option to be under self control only, but has become the object of the total observation drawled in the matrix of the mass.

Is the new democracy really the new totalitarianism with millions of pigeonholes or is it opposite of the verified systems with negative connotation, known from the past?

At the Titoâs Yugoslavia there was a well known âbrainwashâ rule proposed by the government to its population saying that âNon-friend never sleeps! Everybody has to be aware at all time.â Citizens attended to be continuously frightened and therefore they suppose to trust the state and follow and obey its instructions. Police, army and other political commissars controlled the nation with ceaseless personal control. The possibility of resistance was at minimum, boundaries were almost closed and one had almost no place to manoeuvre.

Therefore, I can somehow not find the direct linking between new âWesternâ types of surveillance and old totalitarian types of all-time pressure surveillance and I can easily argue that at this moment one has a possibility of choice whether he would like to allow (or not disallow) to be supervised or yet he can resist and try to ignore the systems of surveillance in the name of his belonging right to the privacy. Resistance always demands more inclusion then following and obeying â but what matters here is the choice of not being supervised and therefore at least in the legitimate way choice of own personal private life. In the time of the stateâs personal surveillance â this possibility was not directly an option.

Such arguments, I would argue and widen with the fact that global life is possibly becoming multidimensional and as well extremely rapid â consecutively one has no more energy, time or even possibility to pay attention of own surveillance. Equally, it can be also possible to argue King (2001) which claims that information and communication technologies have advanced at an incredible rate, so that we can do things that at one time were not possible but at the same time we have become traceable to an unprecedented degree. But the fact remains: power has become in modern society virtual in form â whether we accept it or not. The only question is, whether we are utterly loosing the connection when and how the new technologies is going to track us.

Resources:

- Bauman Z. (1998) Globalization â The Human Conequences Cambridge: Polity.

- Bennett J. C. (2001) âCookies, web bugs, webcams and cue cats: Patterns of surveillance on the world wide webâ Ethic and Information Technology Vol.3 pp.197-201.

- Boyne R. (2000) âPost-Panopticismâ Economy and Society Vol.29 No.2 pp.285-307.

- Foucault M. (1991 [1975]) Discipline and Punish â The Birth of the Prison London: Penguin Books.

- Gandy, O. (1993). The Panoptic Sort: A Political Economy of Personal Information. Boulder, CO, Westview Press.

- Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, Polity Press.

- Green, S. (1999) âA Plague on the Panopticon: Surveillance and Power in the Global Information Economy.â Information, Communication and Society 2(1): 26-44.

- Howard N. P., Carr N. J. and Milstein J. T. (2005) âDigital Technology and the Market for Political Surveillanceâ Surveillance & Society Vol.3 No.1 pp.59-73.

- King L. (2001) âInformation, Society and the Panopticonâ The Western Journal o Graduate Research Vol. 10, No.1 pp.40-50.

- Norris, C. (2003) âFrom Personal to Digital: CCTV, the Panopticon and the Technological Mediation of Suspicion and Social Control.â Surveillance as Social Sorting. D. Lyon (ed.). London, Routledge.

- Lyon D. (1994) The Electronic Eye â The Rise of Surveillance Society Cambridge: Polity Press.

- Lyon, D. (2001) Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life. Buckingham, Open University Press.

- Poster, M. (1996) âDatabases as Discourse, or, Electronic Interpellations.â Computers, Surveillance, and Privacy. D. Lyon and E. Zureik (eds.). Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press: 175-192.

- Simon B. (2005) âThe Return of Panopticism: Supervision, Subjection and New Surveillanceâ Surveillance & Society Vol.3 No.1 pp.1-20 online: http://www.surveillance-and-society.org

Re: Metaphor

CalifJim — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 17:31:48 GMT

The song lyrics in question contain multiple mixed metaphors or metaphoric language but no single consistent metaphor. "shadows" is metaphoric for negative influences, I assume. "nightmare" is metaphoric for terrible times, I assume. "chains" seem to be a reference to some sort of inability to act -- not clear from the context. At any rate, being free from the chains seems to be equated with being awake. But "awake" itself is metaphoric for having an understanding or realization (of something -- although it's not clear what). It's quite a hodge-podge of images, although I wouldn't tell a student it was a horrible example. Surely there is a more diplomatic way of putting it.

Unfortunately, I don't know what to suggest as a better example of a metaphor in a song as I'm not familiar with a lot of songs. Maybe another member of the Forum will assist.

CJ

Re: an unresolved post

MrPedantic — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 02:05:21 GMT

"Originally, most intellectual criticism of mass culture was negative in character, being based on the assumption that the wider the appeal, the more shoddy the product."

1. This sentence would relate primarily to "mass culture", e.g. popular films, music, books, not "mass-produced goods". Although "product" is used as a (dead) metaphor, in this context (hence the reference to mass production in my answer), we are not meant to take it as a reference to forks and seatbelts.

2. "The wider the appeal, the more shoddy the product" is criticism, and it's negative.

3. "Originally" suggests that the speaker is about to present a description of "later" intellectual criticism. This would no doubt include a reference to postmodernistic appreciation of mass culture.

4. I don't assume intellectuals behave in a uniform fashion. The speaker of the sentence does. Since it's an exercise, we may assume that it's an imaginary speaker, in an imaginary context.

The point of these exercises is not to judge the content. It's to make logical inferences from that content.

MrP