Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XXII

Itwethey has proceeded this way:

A. Itwethey refers to something called “openness”, but doesn’t say what that is. This is because Itwethey doesn’t explicitly know what it is. That it is, is something Itwethey relies on others to already know or readily accept. Itwethey assumes “openness” whatever the heck it is, is culturally shared by a very large number of people, who, though their understanding of it may be as vague as Itwethey’s own, the vague understanding is the same vague understanding as Itwethey’s. Itwethey also assumes that as Itwethey clarifies the vague understanding of “openness”, its emerging clarified form will be recognizable by a large number of people as the “openness” that if they had clarified it, would clarify to this form.

B. Itwethey’s vague understanding of “openness” is metaphoric; the metaphors are taken from structural features. That this is so has, as far as Itwethey knows, nothing to do with Structuralism (or post-Structuralism), (or “structural engineering” or structure in any other scientific sense) and that’s all to the good. The metaphors refer to powerful, determining feelings. There is very little symbolism involved. The feelings probably do relate to such social, cultural, or economic phenomena as disciplining, and following routines, punching clocks, following orders, rules, laws, prohibitions, regimentation of all forms, and repressions (understood as the internalization of such disciplining). As both the desire to be able to follow the rules, punch the clock, etc, and the hatred of doing so.

C. Itwethey takes the metaphors seriously and wants to follow their logic: a logic of metaphors. The metaphorical meaning of “flexibility” is not arbitrary. Its association with the concept of structure is not arbitrary. The time-invariance of structure means that “openness” is felt as time-invariant, Itwethey thinks. If so, that might be an important discovery—Itwethey will by and by demonstrate this is so.