'This' cannot equal 'that.' The very act of comparison introduces an additive agent. When we associate we are engaged in a creative process. In fact, what we qualify as the creative act is rather the analogous one. But it would be a mistake to assume this is a referential activity. Its germination and culmination is a discursive one. The comparison of thing to thing is generative, as also is, not, MUST be, conversation. The comparison, here, becomes a conversion. It would be a grave disservice to either party engaged to reduce the discourse to simple tautological experiment - to speak of a thing is not the passing of the thing from one set of hands to another.
A one-to-one relationship is an absolute impossibility. The model - introduced simply to be dismissed - of a game of catch is inherently flawed due to its linearity. We would be far better serviced to envision an illuminated field of referents. Instead of a fatalist flow from here to there - the inevitable salmon trail of reference - how about a commonalized dispersal? If a field, then, why not a net? Linguistic comparison rethought as a pliable, permissive net optimally serves to affirm language as the extension in addition to the extent of our world.
A move away from a linear vision of a comparison opens up the explosive potentiality of a self-reflexive language. Furthermore, comparison on such a set, straight forward path only stresses the commodification of language. 'This' for 'that' has retained such a firm stranglehold on our conceptions of analogy precisely because of our matriculation within a capitalist, product-oriented, production-oriented, society. By allowing for syntactical waste, we celebrate the intracticality of not only a specific tongue, but the very institution of meaning, its attendants. Meaning, then, is a matter of linguistic surplus.
What passes through the net is of equal importance to that which is entrapped. By accepting comparative inefficiency, we also locate ourselves within the creative nexus of discourse - wherein the binary of a dialouge becomes restrictive.
The word, decentralized. Its speakers, exponentialized.