I’m still working my way through my project on compositional/scientific metaphor. I thought grounding my ambitions of applying scientific theory as a metaphor for theory of composition would come with missteps, but I didn’t foresee the ground being so treacherous. This is not to say I’m giving up on the idea, because to some extent, it should be difficult to pin down – that’s the point. My invention of this compositional metaphor was not to replace old conventions with new ones that would ultimately meet the same fate in universality, but instead just frame them in such a way that draws action/attention/invention pedagogically. What brought this to surface was a question over durability; for a metaphor to be meaningful, must it be durable? How is durability defined? Is it limited to use (degree of reach)?
Because page tectonics would not be what Lakoff and Johnson consider conventional metaphor (it would classify as novel), I’m not sure it has to be durable. But is it enough to just put it out there? I hope my idea/justifications become more durable, at least, as I continue to work the topic.