Comment on Rationally Irrational

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:31:48 GMT

I think we've gotten down to the root of our disagreement here. Obviously you find that "for humans, the map is the territory"...The problem I have with it is that the territory is still there. It doesn't change depending on how accurate our map is.

I think a gap in our communication is the type of map we visualize in our use of this analogy. When we say map, what type of map are you envisioning? This is just a guess, but to me it seems like you are imagining a piece of paper with topography, landmarks, and other various symbols marked out on it. It is from this conception of a map that you make the claim "the territory is still there." I imagine you see the individual of our analogy with their nose pressed into this type of parchment moving solely based on its markings and symbols. For you this is a bad choice of navigating, because the individual is ignoring the reality that is divorced from the parchment.

Is this an accurate portrayal of your position within this analogy?

When I say, "The map is the territory." I am not talking about piece of parchment with symbols on it. I literally mean that the map is the territory. As when you navigate by the moss on trees, or the stars in the sky.

When I say "the map is the territory" as in moss or stars, I am implying that humans do not have the type of agency/power over the map that the latter analogy implies. A map as a piece of paper is completely constructed through human will. a map that is the territory is not.

You say

The blank is on the map, i.e. our theories and understanding, and not in the territory, and it's a pretty irritating blank to have, which tons of people would like to be filled.

By saying the map is the territory I am implying that it cannot be filled in; that humans do not construct the map, they just interpret it. There is nothing to be filled in. Do you see how these are radically different interpretations of map? I see this as the point of difference between us.

To answer some of your side questions-

This theory is the core of modern anthropology, but only some sub-divisons of the other mentioned fields. In philosophy it is highly controversial, because it questions the entire western project of philosophy and its purpose.

If you look back to my original post to arran, I state that there are multiple definitions of a paradox and all are acceptable. That what is fruitful is not trying to argue about which definition is correct, but to accept the plurality and try to learn a new point of reference from the one you have been trained in.

Discuss