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?
-
-
Hm, somewhat obvious, but the uhh... mapping from literal maps & territories to the more general case maybe less so. eg "overarching universal ontology, combining all possible categorizations" seems like sthg I might have vaguely thought was possible before reading Meaningness
-
Unclear if I would have endorsed it as a thing that was possible once the matter was brought to light, but I at least somewhat would have been acting as though that were a thing.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think the first point would be quite obvious (the map is not the territory) to most readers of your book. But I feel the second point (diff. ontology have diff. purposes) is not that obvious and might be worth including
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.