to talking with him, and that as a result of that talking she now does with him, she now feels she is a lot less depressed.
A metaphor is an analogy which is made to show that two different entities are identical when they share in common some characteristic. It is derived from the Greek word meaning to “carry across.” Metaphors seemingly “carry across” feelings, characteristics, images, or ideas of one entity, to another entity, when they actually don’t. There is no “carrying across” because the two entities of the analogy have become identical from predicate-equating! Because they become identical, the understanding of one entity is applicable to the understanding of the other entity. To understand a metaphorical presentation, suppose I were to tell you, “It’s the early bird that gets the worm.” Though I don’t mention you by name, you know what I say has a reference to you. You know that what I tell you isn’t just about an early arriving bird getting a worm which is something that the bird very much desires. What I tell you is a metaphorical presentation in which the early arriving bird is being equated with a person who arrives early, and as a result of this, is rewarded with what he or she very much desires. I’m also equating that person with you. “Arriving early and getting what is greatly desired” is the predicate that equates the bird with the person, and what that person greatly desires, or needs, and those two entities are equated with you. I’m giving you “good advice,” by this metaphorical means, about the advantages of arriving early. The bird, the person, and you become identical such that what is said about one, fits with the other. There is no “carrying over.” The entities are the same! This predicate-equating is recognizable to you, as well as to me. Both you and I recognize that what I’m telling you about the early bird is metaphorical. What we both may not be aware of, is that this metaphorical language is based on predicate-equating. We’re consciously doing, in understanding figures of speech, what we might have erroneously concluded only schizophrenics do!
If I had told you, “It’s the second mouse that gets the cheese,” I’m using metaphorical language to present an opposing view to that presented about the early arriving bird. The mouse that doesn’t arrive first at the trap, avoiding a terrible personal disaster, while a little later getting what it greatly desires, is being equated with a person who doesn’t arrive first, and who avoids a terrible personal disaster while being a little later rewarded with what he or she greatly desires. That person is also being equated with you. I’m aware that I’m giving you “good advice” about not being first which you recognize. This too is a recognizable metaphorical presentation that is based on conscious predicate-equating. But we can also unconsciously predicate-equate in our extended talking with a listener which can make that talking metaphorical. We won’t recognize our talking is metaphorical and neither will our listener. That chemist, talking to me about the young man she met that was so easy with whom to talk, could have been an unrecognized metaphorical presentation for an unconscious part of her, talking about an unconsciously perceived part of me, that was meeting weekly some of what was unmet of her basic emotional need. If so, that metaphorical presentation would have been made possible by illogical unconscious “part”-oriented predicate-equating. For me to believe she was talking “in part” about me might appear to people unfamiliar with unconscious predicate-equating, and unconscious metaphorical presentations, as my being paranoid. Feeling people are talking about you when you listen to them talk to you about anything, does sound rather paranoid. But metaphorical communications very much do occur in our talking, as we shall soon see, and when they do, they are based on unrecognized predicate-equating. What might appear as being paranoid, could be what is being unconsciously conveyed to a listener, metaphorically, which most often involves contrasting inner conflicts as varied as being an “early bird,” or a “second mouse.”
We may recall from our high school English, that a simile is a comparison. For instance, if I were to tell you, “You are like a work-horse,” I’m presenting a comparison. I’m comparing you with a work-horse. But my being able to recognize a simile was preceded by my unconsciously predicate-equating you and a work-horse. In contrast, if I had told you, “You are a work-horse,” I’m not using a comparison. I’m consciously predicate-equating. I’m presenting that you, and a work-horse, are identical because you both share the same predicate of “working long and hard.” Your hearing me say this to you would probably meet a little of what is unmet of your basic emotional need. In contrast, I might be expressing some not so subtle anger to you if I said, “You’re a dodo,” where I’m equating you with a bird that, before it became extinct, was often described as “stupid looking and stupid acting.” This too is a consciously created metaphor based on unconscious predicate-equating. As another example, a housewife might excitingly tell her sister, “I’ve got a bun in the oven!” where she is consciously equating her fetus with a bun, and her uterus with an oven. Her equating predicate might be, “anticipating something very enjoyable.” Her sister readily recognizes this metaphorical expression of being pregnant. When people use metaphors like these, they are consciously thinking just like what we might have thought only schizophrenics do in their conscious thinking that creates their delusions. We shall later see that we can also unconsciously create metaphors in our extended talking to any perceived listener. What we consciously talk about is often metaphorical in nature for unconscious communications of unconscious parts of us, inter-relating with unconsciously perceived parts of our listeners that are being predicate-equated with what we are talking about that we like, or dislike. We’re unconsciously thinking and talking in metaphor. Though that unconscious thinking is very “schizophrenic-like,” it’s just the way our unconscious always “thinks.” It’s the foundation of our unrecognized unconscious communications, metaphorically expressed in what we consciously communicate to a perceived listener.
What is unmet of our basic emotional need is what causes us to unconsciously want to find a “good” or “liked” part in our listener to meet more sufficiently our basic emotional need. The greater the unmet basic emotional need we have, the greater will be our unconscious search for “good” parts of our listener, and the more likely that a “good” part will eventually be unconsciously found. Similarly, our unconsciously wanting to find a target for our stored anger is what causes us to find “bad” or “disliked” parts in our listener. The greater the stored anger we have, the greater will be that unconscious search, and the more likely that a “bad” part will eventually be found in any extended talking to a listener. With a greater amount of stored anger, someone might recognize that we might appear as though we are “looking for a fight.” Even if our listener actually didn’t have any part that was frustrating to our basic emotional need, we could still unconsciously perceive one. With enough stored anger in our unconscious, we could unconsciously do so even if we were talking at length to God in our evening prayers! Because of a commonly shared predicate, such as “not meeting more fully my basic emotional need,” what we might angrily talk about, and that small part we might now unconsciously perceive in our listener, that also is perceived as “not meeting more fully my basic emotional need,” can become equated. Our angrily talking about something in our reality we dislike, to a perceived listener, could then become metaphorical for unconscious parts of ourselves expressing unrecognized anger to that unrecognized small disliked part of our listener. If our basic emotional need has been recently frustrated enough, such that we have a lot of stored anger, we will unconsciously find a “bad” or “disliked” part in our extended talking with any perceived listener, no matter how “innocent,” or “divine” that listener might truthfully be.
Some people do a lot of talking to their pets, which may have great emotional benefit to themselves as well as to their four legged “friends.” Many people have told me how attentive, interested, and understanding their dog seemingly appears when they talk at length to it, and how much better they feel after talking to it about whatever might be on their minds. The dog is a perceived as an interested and understanding listener. Like Santa Claus, a dog doesn’t have to talk to be perceived as a listener that can make a person feel better. Dogs, like any listener, often do show that they, themselves, enjoy being made the center of attention as someone talks at length to them. The “perceived listener” becomes more emotionally significant, the more that listener is perceived as listening. In our extended talking to any perceived interested listener, we can unconsciously
