The word ‘Model’ as used here is a descendent of what is known in learned circles as ‘Theory’, from the early Greek Theoria: ‘ a perspective birthed in contemplation’.
That is, a Theory is not yet confirmed through experimentation and such, nor is it of the elevated stature of a ready ‘Principle’. But it has a legitimacy of its own born of its base of assumptions.
A Model takes life on a host of assumptions, And they all originate in complex draw from the First Divide, the original cleaving of ‘Subject’ and ‘Object’.
So what is my First Assumption? That there is such a thing as a ‘Me’ with such things called ‘Assumptions’ stuffed inside my head. Sort of like socks in a drawer.
‘Method’, said Immanuel Kant, ‘is Procedure according to Principle’. Methods of Inquiry that have immediate credibility to the modern-ear begin with the early Greek philosophers.
Inquiry must begin, they said, with the assertion of Axiom, the investigative analogue of the atom. [You can’t prove an Axiom. Bad idea. The idea of ‘proof’ itself is rooted in an Axiom. But people try all the time.]
But in most cases we have to settle for the Assumption. In a fogged-in world it is the reasonable man’s truth. We carry around a head-full, inherited, acquired, imposed. And often our deepest convictions begin in the flimsiest of assumptions.
An Assumption unlike an Axiom, ranks way down on the conviction-meter. This is the world of Belief. You can believe, partially believe or disbelieve an idea. You can never be sure of how true it is. Beliefs go along with Assumptions; where you find one, you’ll find the other.
Experts know a great deal. The sage knows less and less, as his assumption base keeps getting chipped away. Wisdom digs down. Expertise builds up. [No, I would not have the sage fix my stalled refrigerator.]
A good [not to be confused with ‘Higher’] education gives you the confidence to systematically look your Assumptions and Beliefs in the eye. And not because you can now locate Sudan on a map.
[To elaborate breezily on Model as an ‘Interpretation’ and equate a Modeled-Reality to an ‘Interpreted Reality’ is to miss the point. The very notion of ‘Interpretation’ is a Modeled-Idea. As is the notion of ‘Model’. [Fresh Academics and Deconstructionists are the most susceptible to such leaps.]
An understanding built on Assumptions and corresponding Beliefs and [necessarily] expressed in the vocabulary of Signs and Symbols [typically Language and Logic] is called a ‘Model’. A conventional understanding of Self and World [Vyavaharasatya, in its original meaning].
Importantly, there is no ‘Error’ here, ‘Accuracy and Error’ being themselves modeled interpretations. If I am building a house, I darn well hope the architect I’ve hired knows his geometry. And the pilot on my next flight, his coordinates. And my surgeon, especially my surgeon, his straight line.
And finally, once you have mastered the notion of ‘Model’ you can get rid of it, junk the very idea of ‘Model’. As there is, never was, any such thing as a Separated ‘Self’, there are no ‘Models’ being built by any ‘Separated ‘Self’.
There are no ‘Models’ being embraced by any ‘Separated ‘Self’. There are no ‘Modeled Realities’ in which the non-existent Separated ‘Self’ resides. In fact, there are no ‘Models’ at all.
You truly understand the idea of ‘Model’ when, and only when, you see that there are, never were, any such things as ‘Models’. And no one here naively succumbing to any modeled-understanding. Or awakening in an exit from them.
But until you are in sight of Shūnyam, the notion of ‘Model’, its use as pedagogic tool is necessary, in fact indispensable.