Re: Some thoughts on the Modelling Relation

["Daniel A. Fiscus" <***>]

On Sun, 22 May 2005, Tim Gwinn wrote:

> As to going "beyond the MR", I'm not sure what that would mean. At root, the
> modelling relation occupies a central position in the Rosennean
> epistemological foundation. The reason that the arguments about largest
> models, anayltic vs. synthetic models, and so on carry any epistemological
> weight rests precisely on the presumption that the modelling relation is in
> fact "the habitat of all epistemology", to use Rosen's phrase from Essays
> [p.324]. Otherwise, none of the formal conclusions have any force of
> argument - they become mere mathematical excursions.


> question thus really requires answering: is Natural Law a specific instance
> of something more generic?


Tim,

Re: your two snips above and your post...

I have started to read semiotics and that is good
for a parallel universe perspective. They have a
field or approach there called modeling systems
theory. They also talk of semiotics as modeling
and systems of meaning. Also of three major types
of modeling/semiotics/meaning - phyto-, zoo- and
anthro-semiotics. If these are three different
instantiations or realization of modeling relations,
does this help answer your question(s)? And next,
if these three different systems are all
interdependent, all work together in another whole
that might be unfractionable and like a
life-as-a-whole-semiotics, what does that suggest?

Some thoughts quick...your post has me thinking...

Dan