What Korzybski got wrong about the map and the territory
mattpmn.substack.com
mattpmn.substack.com
> 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.
Maybe OP is trying hard to express a not yet fully formed nuanced and new idea that was sort of at the subconscious level, and we are just struggling to understand.
> When the map and the terrain disagree, believe the terrain.
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.
> 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.
I know that Korzybski is now associated with the dubious NLP movement, but I was curious to know - is he taken seriously outside of NLP?
Farcical, Korzybski would have slapped him hard.
Oddly enough, he's kind of difficult to find nowadays.
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.
The global territory is 3D; the map is 2D. Reducing the dimensionality introduces distortion. The map is always a lie. A decent cartographer reduces the lie to a fib. A bad one emits propaganda and enables the worst tyranny.
The observation extends to all research. The only model for reality is precisely that: reality itself.
This is not an anti-science screed. Rather, a reminder to keep it humble. Purity is for mathematicians.
https://genius.com/Jorge-luis-borges-on-exactitude-in-scienc...