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?
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
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?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @StephenPiment @Meaningness
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.
2 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
However, most people who try to point at these confusions have trouble, because they're ontological confusions and people tend to interpret incoming words as meaning something within their current ontology, rather than pointing at how it could be different.
1 reply 2 retweets 3 likes -
I sense a motte&bailey-esque thing here (except not so antagonistic as the central uses of that term). There's an obvious simple true thing that TMINTT means, & most people stop with that one when looking, then go back to making map-territory muddles when not paying attention.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @Malcolm_Ocean @StephenPiment
Can you give an example of a map-territory error that may be commonly made? The range of responses to my query suggests that the statement is sufficiently pithy and metaphorical that different people interpret quite differently what M-T confusion consists of…
5 replies 1 retweet 1 like
(This is consistent with your motte-and-bailey analogy: there are more and less subtle interpretations maybe)
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.