[HN Gopher] What Korzybski got wrong about the map and the terri...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       What Korzybski got wrong about the map and the territory
        
       Author : vitabenes
       Score  : 21 points
       Date   : 2023-03-14 11:52 UTC (11 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (mattpmn.substack.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (mattpmn.substack.com)
        
       | avgcorrection wrote:
       | This article takes a koan-like saying and both over-explains it,
       | uses it to draw in all sorts of misc. topics (AI?), and abuses
       | the metaphor ("A map shows you everything at once. The order of
       | events matters on a journey.").
        
         | lofatdairy wrote:
         | > We talk about wild stuff on this newsletter blog. You won't
         | get mental stimulation like this from today's fifteenth SEO
         | blog post quoting Charlie Munger on "mental models".
         | 
         | Hilariously overwrought style aside, I think the actual insight
         | isn't quite so trite. The author seems to be arguing that
         | there's a phenomenological element to the territory, and that
         | the implication of Korzynbski's oft-repeated aphorism is to
         | imply that the territory exists independent to one's experience
         | of it. I'm not too familiar with phenomenology so I could be
         | wrong, but the concepts that the territory in its entirety is
         | both unknowable and that all we have are maps of maps have been
         | played with by other philosophers and aren't limited to
         | phenomenological lines of argument. Maybe the novelty is the
         | specific argument that the territory unfolds before us as we
         | travel "through" it, but honestly I'm not spending anymore time
         | trying to work my way through such a rough draft.
        
       | probablypower wrote:
       | > Korzybski: The map isn't the territory.
       | 
       | > This article: The map isn't the experienced territory isn't the
       | territory.
       | 
       | This seems over-thought and tautological. It just reinforces to
       | me that Korzybski was wise. The article was also needlessly
       | meandering for my tastes, but I guess some people like "making
       | their way down the trail" of a blogpost.
        
       | barathr wrote:
       | Chapman had a good, very detailed essay on this topic:
       | 
       | https://metarationality.com/maps-and-territory
        
       | StrangeATractor wrote:
       | Hell of a coincidence, I just bought a bunch of Korzybski.
       | 
       | Oddly enough, he's kind of difficult to find nowadays.
        
         | jerrysievert wrote:
         | I was lucky to pick up a second hand copy of Science and Sanity
         | about 25 years ago at Powell's in Portland. sadly, it appears
         | they are now only able to sell the "selections from".
         | 
         | the older editions are just beautiful in hardback.
         | 
         | amazon appears to have a single copy in stock as of this
         | comment, but I'm afraid most people will end up having to do an
         | "alternate library" search to get a pdf copy of this amazing
         | book.
        
       | ineptech wrote:
       | I don't think the author quite groks the map/territory
       | distinction that Korzybski goes on and on about.
       | 
       | > A map shows you everything at once. The order of events matters
       | on a journey. Knowing your way around a place isn't remotely like
       | map-knowledge. Korzybski almost gets this point. Whatever is
       | happening as we represent the flow of sensation in words has a
       | weak and fragile grip on things outside of the mind. Words can
       | only express a tiny slice of what we experience of the world.
       | 
       | In other words, he's complaining that a "map" (as in, paper with
       | a drawing of some terrain on it) is a poor and limited stand-in
       | for a "map" (as in mental model of some phenomenon). But that's
       | exactly what Korzybski was saying! All maps are poor and limited,
       | by virtue of being maps, even the one implied by "The map is not
       | the territory" which uses physical terrain maps as a model for
       | models generally.
       | 
       | To be fair, Korzybski was prolific and most of his writing is
       | pretty opaque and I don't understand 90% of his output (and I
       | consider myself a huge fan!) so I may be misunderstanding OP's
       | point, or misrepresenting Korzybski's. I'm just adding my two
       | cents' worth because I was very heavily influenced by General
       | Semantics (the parts I can understand) and am always excited to
       | see it discussed.
        
         | superb-owl wrote:
         | I agree with your assessment. OP is aligned with Korzybski,
         | even though he says he's disagreeing.
        
       | larsrc wrote:
       | What is the author on and where can I get some? Or is it an AI
       | hallucinating? Can we even tell the difference? Are the AIs ready
       | to pass the Stoner Turing test?
        
       | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
       | I always liked the Swiss Army take on that:
       | 
       |  _> When the map and the terrain disagree, believe the terrain._
        
         | folli wrote:
         | As one of my commanders (in the Swiss Army) used to say: "Die
         | Karte ist eine Lugnerin." (The map is a liar)
        
       | [deleted]
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-03-14 23:03 UTC)