I mostly think the map is the territory.
-
-
-
Oh… can you say more about that?
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yes. I am especially baffled by people noting TMINTT as though this is some deep insight. It amounts to a smug denial of the most naive realism. OK, so not that. Now what?
-
I recently spent a few hours w/ the original source (Korzybski's Science & Sanity) and it gave me the impression that while current zeitgeist has partially just digested this insight, there are fundamental pieces missing. Most people are full of confusions that TMINTT negates.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
people are bad at communicating. "aren't you just saying the map is not the territory" is often a proxy for a harder statement to make "I was confused about what the territory really was for a while", which there's some resistance to admitting.
-
Not sure I follow—can you say more? How do these statements connect? In what way would one be confused about what the territory is, and how would one get unconfused?
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Have you read Borges’ short story “On Exactitude in Science”?
-
Thanks, yes!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That Korzybskyan observation is incomplete without prescribing a solution: because vehicles for knowing unavoidably shape what is known, vehicles and contents fundamentally can't be pulled apart, so it is wise to employ different vehicles to converge on a less artifactual sense.
-
I think "territory != map" generally arises as helpful in social contexts where the map is taken for granted and its implications ignored. It is synonymous with "pay attention to what our tools for knowing do to what we know".
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.