03/01/2005 Archived Entry: "Darmok and Jilad at Tanagra"

The Tamarians in Star Trek: The Next Generation’s episode entitled Darmok spoke only through metaphors. This was an inventive way of having a first contact language barrier that could not be surmounted by the Universal Translator. The episode wishes us to believe that such a race has been capable of building warp-capable ships and exploring the universe. I think such a proposition is impossible.

First of all, the parties involved both have to have to same experiences, and know the same stories to understand the metaphors. Picard did not know the story of Darmok and Jilad so he had no way of understanding what captain Dathon was trying to express. This is likely to be a similar problem within the Tamarian race, they cannot possible know all the all same stories and share the same experiences. Another problem arising from the use of metaphors is that the interpretation could vary from person to person. For "Darmok and Jilad at Tanagra" to mean what the Tamarians have come to know it to mean, all would have to agree that the most important part of the story, and the thrust of it, be that Darmok and Jilad came together to fight a beast a left as allies, but when an interpretation of “teamwork will prevail where 1 man cannot” is just as likely an interpretation, the use of the metaphor leaves the intent too vague.

Secondly, if they’re strictly limited to the use of metaphors, they cannot explain basic concepts that do not yet have metaphors associated with them. For example, Captain Dathon could do nothing but keep repeating "Darmok and Jilad at Tanagra" to Picard, he had no other way to explain what he wanted to achieve than those words and the experience he was hoping to share. Maybe it's my lack of imagation but how would it possible for them to communicate new ideas, experiences, or thoughts that are beyond the limits of their current experience?

Replies: 6 comments

I haven't thought about this enough to mount a complete disagreement, but I think I disagree. Primarily because new ideas are often conveyed in terms of old ideas. If I have some brilliant new thought, never thought before by anyone else, how can I explain it to you but by relating it to something you already know? Everything "tastes like chicken", constructive interference in waveforms is "the same as waves on a pond", eternally good heroes/martyrs in literature are "Christ figures", quantum mechanics is explained in terms of some stupid cat in a box, etc.

In fact, I had a psych/phil professor argue that the biggest difference between human minds and artificial minds is the human ability to find analogies and metaphors. Analogy is, perhaps, the power of intelligence.

I do, however, agree with your point that metaphors are inherently fuzzy and are perhaps not precise enough to do things like build faster-than-light vehicles. Metaphors tend to break down at their limits. Abstractions like C++ class hierarchies tend to be metaphorical for "real" life (sometimes only abstract things, that arguably aren't "real"), and every class hierarchy seems to break down at some point--you always end up needing to know _something_ about the internal workings of some piece of the hierarchy to make effective decisions. In other words, you can't rely on the abstraction 100% of the time, you almost always need to find out how it works "under the hood" to a certain extent. Metaphors tend to work on the surface but tend not to stand up to intense scrutiny.

Ian

Posted by Ian @ 03/01/2005 08:31 PM EST

I'd recently be wondering exactly what it is that they said in that episode... :)

Metaphor's a powerful tool, and it can sometimes express things that it would take many more words to express, but I don't think it can replace basic language. eg, it'd be awfully difficult just to express your opinion.

And if any saying on that particular planet could have had two sides -- take, for instance, on earth, capitalism, individualism, or communism. For different peoples, these can be either good or bad.. there's so many sides to everything, it's hard to guarantee that all will have the same interpretation, as Rayne said.

What's the one when the walls fell? :P

Posted by Arshwana @ 03/05/2005 11:17 PM EST

Shaka when the walls fell.

I can't complain about the metaphorical basis for the Tamarian language. Its an interesting concept. My only concern is with the damn transporter beam that confines Picard, while Dathon is getting his ass whooped.

Posted by dAN @ 03/06/2005 03:08 AM EST

I'm gonna hold to my assertion that you can't explain concrete stuff like math + science properly using only metaphors.

Would "mix 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen" be something like..."dAN at Carleton"?

Posted by Rayne @ 03/06/2005 08:50 PM EST

Oh, I agree with your stance. Your analysis just kinda takes away from a good episode...:P!

Hmmm...actually, I'm at OttawaU...;).

Posted by dAN @ 03/06/2005 10:03 PM EST

Yea, I jsut watched it last night (or 2 nights ago, can't remember) and it is an awesome episode. Patrick Stewart's acting while describing The Epic of Gilgamesh is somethin' else.

Can you imagine Archer in this situation? He'd just start stabbing away, methinks.

Posted by Rayne @ 03/08/2005 02:41 AM EST