The mnemonic "X is Y", where X=Target and Y=Source, is a standard method for stating or identifying a metaphor among cognitive scientists and conceptual metaphor theorists. (Lakoff (1993) points out that this mnemonic represents a set of ontological correspondences, not an equality or a logical proposition, and that they characterize epistomic correspondences which can be thought of as maps of knowledge or conceptual mappings.)

-General metaphor being diagrammed is largest and at center.
-Radiating out are entailments.
Entailment titles can be understood as modifiers of both terms of the metaphor, e.g., for the metaphor "Conflictual Emotion is Pressure Outward", having an entailment "Energy", this entailment could be rendered as "Conflictual Emotional Energy is Energy Pressing Outward" or "Energetic Conflictual Emotion is Energetic Outward Pressure ".
-Direction of arrow indicates "understood metaphorically as."
-Double arrow is used when connected metaphors share same Target that is understood in terms of two (or more) Sources (maybe better to show the Target in a diamond, then branching to two or more Sources).
-Entailments may be other metaphors, the entailments of which may radiate from there.
-Multiple metaphors may blend to a separate space.
-Text boxes of entailments can contain example usages.

Other major metaphors involved are in position of entailments, but larger format. Clicking them may go to another level or file for that metaphor.

Link labels could mention role of connected metaphor.

Colors or object shapes could be used to indicate author's explicit metaphors, metaphors shown elsewhere to be related, and extentions or entailments not explicitly mentioned.
Gray (diamond) as primary, overall impulse.
Dark Blue governing metaphor.
Blue as metaphor for what is going on inside (or per link label).
Dark Brown as metaphor for what is going on in world outside (or per link label).
Cyan as documented entailment.
White as conventional entailment that may be operating yet undocumented.
Yellow is generic level metaphor.
Red (octagon) is documented novel metaphor.
White (octagon) is undocumented (hypothesized) novel metaphor.
Yellow-Green as special case (that may inherit entailments from >1 metaphor).
Dark Orange is blend space from multiple metaphors.

There is freedom to use other colors and shapes (maybe ellipses) to suggest metaphors or blends the mappings for which are not clear or are hypothesized.

How to express priorities, that is, which Targets (as metaphorically understood) have greater weight in judging an action to be consistent?

The Analyzer might be useful in sorting out by keywords, colors, number in text, etc.

So far we are just showing all possible entailments. In a particular case only certain entailments may be operating, which map to the Target to produce certain results. Would mental spaces be used to illustrate this? Multiple metaphors for the same Target could cause foregrounding or suppression of certain entailments (blending).

Overlays can be used to build up the diagram. Start first with main or governing metaphor(s) plus principal mappings. Add complexities, entailments, special cases, etc. in subsequent overlays. Different overlays could illustrate distinct "camps" within the same metaphor structure. Finally, showpriorities and actions that correspond to various versions. Overlays could also be constructed to highlight gaps in theory, understanding, where conventional metaphors fill in for theoretical detail, where alternate interpretations might be possible, and issues in teaching and learning.

Objects can be sequenced to produce a textual description; [notes] or asides can be put in special objects signified by small dots or diamonds wih footnote numbers for titles (these could be omitted from sequence or put at end).

So much of what these authors are telling us, however, is not the points that are bulleted or summarized, not the points of an argument or explanation. It is the substrate of the language, concepts and metaphors...

We speak about nonviolent communications and think about it, but we may have little direct experience and no objective way to know what it is. Sometimes it is said that we see communications, conflict, etc. "through lenses, prisms or filters that reveal only certain facets. I believe this is another way of saying that we cannot see these things directly or objectively and so have to "decode" them or make inferences from what we do see. This indirect "seeing" or "decoding" is very often based upon metaphorical thinking -- thinking about one thing in terms of something else -- using the terms and inference structure of the other thing to bootstrap our understanding of the first.

So, in the beginning at least, we develop our understanding metaphorically. What are the metaphors inherent to the subject and which we unconsciously use to understand nonviolent communication and how are these metahpors structured?

We are attempting to reveal the conceptual metaphoric
structure underlying thinking about nonviolent communication. This will not include unique theoretical detail or say what nonviolent communication should or should not consist of. Conceptual metaphors will instead reveal the general understanding or common sense of discussion about nonviolent communication. Certainly more is involved in the experience or theory of nonviolent communication than the conceptual metaphors express, but in these metaphors is the essential meaning that is assumed, outside of consciousness, yet absolutely essential for understanding.

Metaphor defines our world and shapes our experience. Because of its natural, holistic, largely unconscious and automatic operation to form our thinking, the influence of unobtrusive, conceptual metaphor is pervasive. Conceptual metaphor reflects the everyday concepts we use and, to the extent it is conventionally accepted, defines cultural understanding of how things work. We may speculate that a major portion of the implications of any theory derive from its largely hidden conventional metaphor structure, compared with its explicit theoretical propositions:
Conventional conceptual metaphors influence the meaning of terms by highlighting or foregrounding certain entailments and backgrounding others (especially when combinations of metaphors are used together).
Using particular metaphors (consciously or unconsciously) defines the scope of thought and discussion, includes or excludes cerain elements and puts into play a particular inference structure that can control one's point of view and range of options.
Metaphors are indeterminant in the sense that they seem inherent to the issue being discussed -- while often hedging on precise definitions or factual validity. Metaphors lend a certain authenticity or common-sense reasonableness while not necessarily addressing questions of veracity.

Common sense that allows us to compare and contrast different theories and approaches to communication in mediation, and links the professional's views and procedures with the client's experience of nonviolent communication.

Among different professionals or authors we would expect to find structures that are similar and also different in certain important respects.

Greater clarity and groundedness in what a theory says, what practice consists of. May highlight correspondences, inconsistencies, voids, links or disconnects between the theory and practice, contrasts between different theories and practices, contrasts between common sense (conventional metaphoric) understanding and novel or specific theoretical development. May help to resolve issues about what NVC really is or ought to be.

Revealing the metaphoric understanding of a discipline such as NVC expresses the personal and societal values underlying it; also socially costructed and personally constructed meanings. This can lead to deeper understanding, the ability to expand our thinking, and important insights about how something like NVC might become more powerfull, usefully elaborated and and continue to be developed.

Teaching a discipline or system or approach like NVC is normally done by presenting ideas and concepts, rational linkages between them, and describing how to use the approach in practice. What would be the result if the conventional and novel metaphor structures implicit in the approach were also taught? I believe this would better align the teaching with the underlying process we all use to understand our experience of the subject matter

What would be the result if the metaphor structures of the teaching process, itself, were taught? For example, instead of presenting the concept of "need", cases would be presented in which needs might be detected. In additiona, some primary conceptual metaphors would be presented in simple form that pick up on several classic ways that "need" has been conceptualized (e.g., empty container, pressure from within, energy transfer)

We are attempting to reveal the Primary Conceptual metaphoric
structure underlying thinking about conflict. This will not include unique theoretical detail or say what conflict should or should not consist of. Primary Conceptual metaphors will instead reveal the general understanding or common sense of discussion about conflict and conflict resolution. Certainly more is involved in the experience or theory of conflict than the Primary Conceptual Metaphors express, but in these metaphors is the essential meaning that is assumed, outside of consciousness, yet absolutely essential for understanding.

Metaphors define our world and shape our experience.

Common sense that links the professional's views and procedures with the client's experience of conflict.

Among different professionals or authors we would expect to find structures that are similar and also different in certain important respects.