Re: Relational "Space"

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Judith,

We just can't seem to agree today! :) Hehe!

I believe I use 'metaphor' as is described in LI p 64-66: "This is the
essence of metaphor: decoding without encoding, in a sense, only the top
half of our modelling relation."

By contrast, 'analogy' is defined on p. 63: "This modelling relation between
two natural systems, N1, N2 is of the most profound importance; I shall call
it analogy."

My discussion was about a modelling relation that has decoding from, but no
encoding to, a formal model; so accordingly I called the formal
representation a metaphor.

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Judith
> Rosen
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:17 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Relational "Space"
>
>
> Again, we have a word definition difference; you were using the word
> 'metaphor' in a way that is synonymous to my father's use of the word
> 'analogy', it seemed to me. (And in the literary world, the two words are
> partial synonyms of each other.)
>
> The word analogy is one he used a great deal in discussing modelling
> relations and is what I was referring to, when I spoke of a model being
> analogous to the system it models or two analogous systems being models of
> each other, etc.
>
> Judith
>
>
> Tim wrote:
> > As to 'metaphor', your father explicitly distinguished metaphors from
> > models, where metaphors are occur in modeling relations minus the
> encodings.
> > [LI 64-66] So, a metaphor is a model-like thing which allows us to make
> > predictions (decodings) and to impute things back to the natural system.
> But
> > we do so without being able to encode back from the natural system: we
> give
> > up the ability to verify these imputations.