Through the looking glass, or not?

Lets examine the alleged inadequacy of the metaphor of x being a mirror image of something else. You accuse the metaphor of being a shortcoming because of its nonsense under scrutiny. To get there we'll have to see at least how it's used and then put it under the logical microscope to see if its credentials can be salvaged. If I say of something that x is a mirror image of y, what exactly am I saying? It seems to me, that I'm saying that x resembles y in almost every aspect. If so, lets see how this holds up when we examine 'mirror image of' completely literally.

When I use the saying loosely and without thinking of meaningful exactitude, I mean 'roughly the same'. But if I were to start using it while paying more attention to the meanings of the words making up the phrase, I'd have to reserve it for, not undiluted identity, but perhaps just 'reflection'. Reflection differs from identity in that a reflected world inverts every relational property of the world reflected. But my point might be to say that there are other usages than literal ones. If language only had literal usages, it would a denuded language indeed.

In our talk on the phone, I mentioned the metaphor of 'My muscle is a rock.' in an effort to prove that all metaphors, if taken literally, are nonsense. You, if I remember, contested this counterexample by saying that this isn't a true exception because there is still sensible similarities between a rock and a muscle: say, hardness. But then I'd say the same about x being a mirror image of y: say, resemblance. But, you might object, the resemblance isn't of the 'reflected kind' I mentioned earlier and therefore its being chosen is nonsense. But if it comes to that, I could say that my muscle's hardness isn't of the 'rocky kind'. The puzzle is solved if we realize that a metaphor is being used. I'm not saying that x literally is the mirror image of y; I'm saying that x figuratively is the mirror image of y. With the 'muscle is a rock' metaphor, it's the same thing: we're not saying my muscle is literally a rock, but figuratively a rock. In the latter case, the property shared is 'relative hardness'; in the former case, the property shared is 'relative similarity' or 'relative resemblance'.

If taken literally, we could only use 'mirror image of' when perfect reflection is attained, an extremely rare event, stripping the poet and the richness of language significantly. All figurative language would be put under this crucible. The Psalms couldn't say the trees clapped for joy. God couldn't be called a vine or a fire. Christ couldn't be called a gate. For a gate is a material construct connected by hinges to a fixed post of some kind, able to be closed or open, designed to keep in or keep out certain things. But Christ is a person, spiritually connected to the Trinity. But when we say Christ is a gate, we mean that He is figuratively a gate in that through Him and Him alone we have access to the Father.

Tell me what you think!