16. The Metafunctional Dimensions Of Modelling Semiotically

The conditions of modelling the categorisable semiotically can be understood in terms of the metafunctional dimensions of meaning-making: the ideational, which includes the experiential and the logical, the interpersonal and the textual. 

Firstly, models are located in the space of ideational variation. Models are organised through experiencing the categorisable.[1] Categorisable difference selects the categories that may or may not be organised into a model of the categorisable. So models depend on the recognition functionality of the neurological system and the prosthetic technologies that extend its recognition abilities, and they depend on the specific experience trajectories of modellers. 

Secondly, models are located in the space of interpersonal variation. Models are organised by values that bias the orientation of modellers to different categories of experience. Limbic system functions that have been of adaptive value to ancestors invest the categories (that are selected by categorisable difference) with positive or negative value, and the complexification of categories within individuals — through the categorisation of categories and their differentiation through semiotic interactions with others — is the complexification of categorial values. Models are motivated organisations of categorisations. 

Thirdly, models are located in the space of textual variation. Models are organised through selective attention to value-categories: focusing on some categories as relevant, and filtering out others as irrelevant.[2] Some value-categories are prominent threads in the weaving together of meanings, while others are thin or absent. Because modelling occurs through a perspectival lens, it is both enabling and disabling: a model is conditional on the assumptions on which it is organised.[3] Models are ‘ways of seeing’ (Berger 1972). 



Footnotes:


[1] The ‘categorisable’ includes categorisations of the categorisable, categorisations of categorisations of the categorisable, and so on.

[2] This relates to Pike’s notion that a theory is like a window that only faces in one direction. 

[3] The influence of ones perspectival lens on categorising was shown by a seminal psychology experiment by Rosenhan (reported in Slater 2004) in which subjects faking their way into mental institutions were not detected by most psychiatrists.


ChatGPT revised:

The Metafunctional Conditions of Modelling

The conditions under which we model the categorisable semiotically can be understood through the metafunctional dimensions of meaning-making: the ideational, encompassing the experiential and the logical; the interpersonal; and the textual.

1. Ideational variation: organising experience
Models are located in the space of ideational variation: they are organised through the experience of the categorisable.[1] It is difference in the categorisable that selects the categories through which it may be modelled. This means that models depend on the recognition functionality of the neurological system, including prosthetic technologies that extend its perceptual reach, and on the particular experiential trajectories of individual modellers.

2. Interpersonal variation: organising value
Models are also located in the space of interpersonal variation: they are organised by the value systems that orient the modeller towards particular kinds of experience. The limbic system — shaped by evolutionary pressures on ancestral bodies — biases the modeller towards or away from particular categories by investing them with positive or negative value. As categories become more complex, both through internal differentiation and through semiotic interaction with others, so too do the values attached to them. Models are not neutral systems of classification; they are motivated organisations of categorisation.

3. Textual variation: organising relevance
Finally, models are located in the space of textual variation: they are organised through selective attention to value-laden categories. This includes foregrounding some categories as salient while filtering out others as irrelevant.[2] Some become prominent organising threads in a fabric of meaning, while others remain peripheral or are omitted entirely. Every model, in this sense, is perspectival: it is a way of seeing (Berger 1972), and like all perspectives, it both reveals and obscures. A model is structured by the assumptions it inherits and enacts — its exclusions are as consequential as its inclusions.[3]


Footnotes

[1] The ‘categorisable’ includes not only directly experienced phenomena, but also categorisations of the categorisable, and categorisations of those categorisations, recursively.
[2] Pike famously observed that a theory is like a window that only faces one way.
[3] The influence of perspectival framing on categorisation was illustrated by Rosenhan’s experiment (reported in Slater 2004), in which actors feigned psychiatric symptoms to gain admission to mental institutions and were largely undetected once inside — demonstrating the self-reinforcing bias of diagnostic frames.