RE: MD Stuck with Map/Territory?

From: Erin Noonan (
Date: Sat Sep 07 2002 - 17:13:32 BST

Marco: My point is not simply that all we can ever know are maps *of reality*.
>point is that maps *are real*. Once I wrote to Denis:
Sam: >
> Yet in understanding conceptual systems, eg the MoQ, it seems to me that
>all that is being mapped is itself intellectual, and that therefore, in a
>very straightforward sense, the map IS the territory
Marco: I agree. Intellectual maps are also part of the intellectual
territory.... I
>just extend the whole thing to the lower levels. Society maps the lower
>levels, and the social level itself... and so on. Actually, it is thanks to
>the fact that [good] maps become the new territory that evolution can
>happen, step by step.

Erin: At first I was going to suggest that instead of
this a map is/is not a territory that we should be more
specific like a an intellectual map is intellectual territory,etc.
I think this map is not the territory is saying the
intellectual map is not the social, biological and inorganic territories.

But in your point you say that social map is a map of the social and
lower levels. I haven't really thought about this but maybe you
could expand. Are you saying a level can map lower levels and itself
but not higher levels?
e.g. So a biological map is not the soical or intellectual territories.

We talk about one level taking sides with other levels and
fighting against other levels so it seems a level would need
a map of the other levels to do this.
In that case we would go into a social map of the intellectual
territory vs an intellectual map of the intellectual territory.

Okay i'm getting more and more confused so i will stop but overall
think a map is/is not a territory is too general to answer.



Mail Archive -
MD Queries -

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:30 BST