Common dismissal: “Aren’t you just saying that ‘the map is not the territory’?” Attempting to clarify, I find myself baffled. Who ever thought the map WAS the territory? (No one.) What work was denying this supposed to do?
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?
-
-
There's a whole class of argument related to refining, correcting, or disposing of symbolic reasoning tools. It's often incredibly useful to be able to do this. when a person really did have a map/territory confusion they will benefit from this kind of correction... 1/n
-
...but possibly feel a sense of embarrassment or inadequacy once they notice that they had made it in the first place. it seems frightfully obvious once it's been seen, and that's the benefit of refining a metaphor or analogy (better map). 2/n
- 3 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.