![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
The Map is Not the Territory! Or Is It?
There’s a very popular saying that gets repeated all the time: “The map is not the territory.” It’s a reference to Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics and it basically means that our models of reality are not the same as reality itself. In most circles, this realization is followed closely by the notion that you can systematically set about changing your model of reality.
In conversation about this earlier with somebody, it struck me that we could add yet another corollary to that. If we really can go about changing our model of reality, then what’s to stop us from creating a map of reality wherein the map actually is the territory? Presumably nothing. As far as I can tell, this essentially is what a New Ager means when they say that we “create our own reality.” Which in turn I suspect is somehow connected to what the Christian theologian means when he says: “The gospel reveals how the world is, in contrast to how it appears to be.”
Yet, it’s possible that we could go once beyond that again: How about we create a reality model in which the territory is the map? Who’s to stop us? As soon as I came to that realization and started digging around on it, I discovered I was not the first to come to such a conclusion. The following passage comes from Lewis Carroll’s Sylvie & Bruno (which Carroll apparently believed to be his greatest work - find out more here):
“We very soon got to six yards to the mile.� Then we tried a hundred yards to the mile.And then came the grandest idea of all!� We actually made a map of the country, on the scale of a mile to the mile!”
“Have you used it much?” I inquired.
“It has never been spread out, yet,” said Mein Herr: “the farmers objected: they said it would cover the whole country, and shut out the sunlight!� So we now use the country itself, as its own map, and I assure you it does nearly as well.”
So what does this mean for our purposes? Does this mean we should stop trying to tinker with our maps or that we should tinker with our maps until we’re ready to put them down? Or something else altogether?
December 9th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
I always thought it was Noam Chomsky who said that. I think he said something similar though. “Cow(1) is not Cow(2)” meaning “the word is not the thing”.
Anyways I have nothing intelligent to say. I do not understand why only a small % of people have the capicity for deep thoughts. Alas, I am not one of them. Is there anyway to make yourself more intelligent through the occult arts? Or maybe I’ll pray to God and ask to be able to use more of my brain.
December 9th, 2005 at 11:01 pm
Borges got there too (perhaps via Carroll?:
…In that empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it.
-Borges, Del rigor en la ciencia
December 9th, 2005 at 11:31 pm
I wonder if this somehow all alludes to a point one might reach where the map is no longer necessary? What Carroll says makes me think that when our maps get as ‘big’ as reality itself, they become nothing but cumbersome upon that reality, and anyway what is the point? Using the reality as the map not only works “just as well” - it works better, because it’s not getting in its own way. It just is. Itself.
December 9th, 2005 at 11:41 pm
What I’m saying is maybe the metaphor you’re bringing up points to a point (points to a point?) where we will finally give up trying to make our maps expand and precisely match reality - where we instead come to ’see’ and relate to reality *directly* - without a map. It would almost bring us around full circle, but with a new understanding - having traversed that full circle, so to speak.
Of course I have huge doubts as to whether our maps could ever fully expand to match reality, unless we expanded our own identities to the point where we ourselves, experientially, became everything. But then, what about the experience of being nothing? Ohhh the neverending stream of questions continues. It’s grappling with these kinds of questions that makes me want to screw reality altogether, live happily in my own map/world and quit worrying about it.
December 10th, 2005 at 12:17 am
That’s funny, because it’s grappling with these kinds of questions that makes me want to live in reality and stop worrying about maps.
December 10th, 2005 at 2:13 am
Indeed. I can see it from that perspective as well. When I say “my map/world” I suppose what I mean is, “what reality is for me” as opposed to some objectified “Reality” with a capital “R” that I’m unable to directly relate to.
December 10th, 2005 at 4:20 am
Now that’s a good concept (good question)!
I can feel that my neural connections are becoming bigger. heheh
Damn! this is a paradigm shift, dude!
I guess…
December 10th, 2005 at 6:15 am
I’d have to say because it kinda contradicts the very premise of the statement. Or at least seems to, to me. To me, the concept has always seemed to imply that you can’t “know” reality/the territory, only your approximation of it.
You can, if you want, assume that your new model is actually the territory, is actually representative of reality, but that’s all anybody who fervently and honestly changes belief systems does.
“Ah hah! Now I really know what’s going on! This is the truth. This is reality.”
December 10th, 2005 at 12:07 pm
On Exactitude in Science by Borges
Umberto Eco developed the idea further in “On the impossibility of drawing a map of the empire on a scale of 1 to 1″, which I read in his anthology “Traveling with Salmon”.
December 10th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
the map is surely not the territory simply because the territory came first. maps are useful models to discuss structures and tactics and strategies, they serve to provide metaphors for analysis. they can be made of anything. paper, plastic, a drawing in the sand or words. they are used to attain consensus in discussions and to create new realities. the map of a building site that will eventually have homes, parks and roads is part of the method of creating our reality. the artist lays out sketches in his mind and on paper before starting his final piece. we build a map of reality upon rising in the morning that sets the tone for our day; a thesis working toward proof.
try not creating your own reality. i think that would be an interesting experiment.
and what precisely is “new age” anyway?
December 10th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
oh yeah, and the map does become the territory if you build it right. from an nlp perspective, at least.
December 10th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
But that’s just a map. We could make a map that says the territory comes after… or we could make a map that says theres no such thing as maps
December 10th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
in critical terms there has to be a consensus as to some sort of external reality known as “the territory”. from this point we can then say that what we reduce from the territory becomes a map.
or, there is no actual territory and there is just maps, which is what we trade on and becomes reality.
the bed post will still find your toe no matter how you construct your map. this piercing through is the only evidence for a baseline reality. everything else is dependent upon mapmakers.
December 10th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
and i don`t think we could build a map that says there are no maps and have it lead to any sense of sanity.
December 10th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
Well why the hell not! It’s our map - we can have it say whatever we want to and go wherever we like with or without it!
Maybe the map could (or should) be a giant piece of paper that has a bunch of intersecting lines on it and in the middle it says in big block letters:
But the point is, that’s just your map saying this, that and everything else that you’re arguing. No arguments derive from reality - they all come from, are or support maps.
Since you’re the map-maker though, then you could conceivably make a new map that says differently. And you even said yourself above: “the map does become the territory if you build it right.” So let’s just build it so damn good that it vanishes and we only have the territory.
December 10th, 2005 at 8:01 pm
The edge of the map, where it spills into reality, are where the sea serpents and dragons live.
/Spooky
December 10th, 2005 at 8:10 pm
what i`m saying is that you can have a map that says anything you want it to, including any denial of reality that you wish, but eventually it has to function in a useful way. another interesting nuero-lingusitic tidbit is that the mind cannot process a negative statement. we cannot not imagine something. so maps that contain negatives don`t function nuero-linguistically. try as hard as you can you cannot not imagine a pink elephant or a red ferrari or the face of an old girlfriend. the image comes first, then the negation. by which time it`s too late. the image is installed. the maps that work are ones that instruct positively. simple yet powerful rule that even the best leaders and managers break every day. that`s why you always hit the last thing you look at.
December 10th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
I’m not saying you should deny reality. I’m saying perhaps you should deny maps. What I mean (for the sake of argument) is who cares how the brain works, who cares how NLP works, who cares how gnosticism works or christian fundamentalism? Let’s get over all that and get on with IT…
December 10th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
And where your mom lives.
;)
December 10th, 2005 at 10:37 pm
analysis is paralysis?
December 10th, 2005 at 10:55 pm
who cares how the brain works, who cares how NLP works, who cares how gnosticism works or christian fundamentalism? Let’s get over all that and get on with IT…
Stop thinking and just feel.
Stop creating the map and be the territory. (Didn’t Christ say that with the faith of a mustard seed, one could move mountains?)
Stop trying to understand, and just know.
Goddamn it’s hard, but I know that it’s the way to go. One can think and analyze into infinity, but you have step outside your logical mind, expand into the “extra” or “super”-terrestrial circuits, to truly experience the territory, and change it.
It ain’t easy, but the reward of success, I imagine, is far beyond all the troubles, dissonances, and hardships of the journey.
One cannot even begin a successful journey, if you can’t even settle on what map to use as your guide. The best guides come from within, because if you look deep enough, you’ve already taken this journey before. You’ve been through it in your dreams, your alternate selves, your past lives, your future potentials, it’s all the same. The only question is whether you can finish the journey, right here, right now.
So yes, let’s get on with it!
December 11th, 2005 at 12:05 am
Dear Allison,
Please continue development of your epic four part series, “Yo mamma jokes as a vector for cognitive science metaphors”. I need an awesome Christmas gift idea, and this would fit the bill quite well.
Yo’ Mamma’ly yours
Me
December 11th, 2005 at 12:58 am
the map is simply part of the territory, which just happens to have a certain degree of similarity to another part of the territory, such that one may be used to navigate the other.
1) the map is a real thing with an independent reality external to my mind. i can trace my finger along a road on a map, to the edge of the map, over the hood of my car, across the land (sea, space) to the same road indicated on the map. i have not breached any boundaries, my finger was always in the territory (even if the map itself was not in the part of the territory it describes).
2) the map only exists as an experience in my mind. “i saw a map / i made a map.” but the same is true of the road, and everything else.
then a map is interesting and useful precisely because it is simply a correlation between two parts of the same territory. an example of just one kind of synchronicity. it matters not whether the map or territory are real or imagined, natural or created. what is the difference? a synchronicity can potentially happen between any two (or more) things. may as well use reality as a map and navigate by the degrees of similarity between all the things you experience (and by the anomalies). how else could you navigate? it’s pattern recognition. it’s the clue to how reality behaves.
it’s the doctrine of signatures.
as above so below, now with fractals!
there are no maps, only territory, which is a map of itself, if you follow me…
yes, ktulu, understand nothing. i think i’ve had it with this.
so long guys, and thanks for all the fish.
December 11th, 2005 at 1:12 am
Carlos, were you agreeing with me, or was that sarcasm? I hate to be unable to perceive the subtle hints you lay, Carlos, but sometimes I really can’t tell where you stand on something.
December 11th, 2005 at 1:40 am
Carlos! That’s it! I knew there was a reason I kept you around. You really just unlocked this mystery for me. That combined with just having watched Mulholland Drive…. POW!
December 11th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
understanding and it`s companion certainty are the trap of the left- brained knowledge industry. granted we need a consensus that needs labels,but with this accumilation of knowledge comes a certain arrogance that becomes resistant to inqiury. can you become so certain that you become uncertain?
uncertainty is the state of resoursefulness that allows us to look for new ways of thinking about things and solving problems. what left-brained person sets out to become uncertain? it`s in the right brain that the state of uncertainty becomes the method for solving problems.
how about that for a map?
the reason why more people don`t welcome uncertainty is that it doesn`t feel good. certainty feels great. certainty gets praise from other right-brains. meanwhile the boat is still sinking.
December 11th, 2005 at 9:15 pm
sorry ktulu, i was certainly agreeing with you (i’m a huge “dune” fan). i think your post was spot-on.
“i’ve had it” definitely should have been a new paragraph, but i was suddenly (and similarly) frustrated with the limitations of language, not with you guys. i mean, i think in images and feelings, and grappling with words and concepts in order to translate my thoughts is becoming somewhat tiresome. besides, the thoughts are moving all the time, it’s hard enough to just catch a glimpse, let alone take a photo (which is why i like movie analogies so much). so carlos is finally going to shut his big mouth (hooray).
anyways, i really mean this: thanks tim (and friends), for a wonderful site and a shitload of inspiration. thanks for having me. i wish you all the very best.
eadem mutata resurgo
ps. “lemony snickett’s a series of unfortunate events” gets my gnostic movie of the year award for 2005. it truly is for those with eyes…
December 13th, 2005 at 11:25 am
where ya goin’ carlos? did eye miss something?
thanx for the posts:
what eye mean is: a picture of a thousand santa clauses on a long, wide, green hilltop, dancing with children on a spring morning with the eye of thoth looking on from the clear, blue sky
December 13th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Well I’m glad that we see things in similar terms, Carlos. I think your opinions are always very insightful.
On other terms, I think I’m approaching the “visual” understanding models that you seem to operate on. Language is becoming increasingly inadequate, and I’m always finding myself “losing a grip” on my language skills (ie. forgetting simple spellings, language structures spiraling out towards infinity, etc.). I truly wish we communicated telepathically, but for now, I guess metaphors and symbols will have to suffice.
Hopefully you aren’t going off into the “sand dunes”, Carlos, but if you are, best of luck to you.
December 13th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
I like not communicating telepathically. I like words failing us. I can’t remember where I read it, but somebody said once that if it weren’t for our inability to communicate completely and telepathically, we wouldn’t have any art or creative expression whatsoever. Our failures, our inability to share fully is what I think drives us forward, makes us want to try even harder.
December 13th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
Perhaps, you are right Tim. Creativity is a form of breaking down barriers. The best periods of creativity and expression come after the worst periods of war, reason, and “failure”.
So let me correct myself, I don’t think full-out telepathic communication would be for the best, but I do think it would be better if telepathic communication were possible (or at least possible beyond the very few who claim to have the ability). It still wouldn’t be perfect, but it would be better in ways, I think, for allowing communication and ideas to flourish. There’s always going to be communication problems and failures, but I just wish I didn’t have to rely on words to communicate experiences. That’s also why I like making music videos and want to be a filmmaker eventually, because I think movies/videos offer a better way to convey emotions, feelings, and experiences than just a book (though it is harder to master than the pen and paper).