The Map is not the Territory

[poolerboy0077]

Many of you seem to confuse the map for the territory; that is, you confuse the abstract representation of something with the actual thing itself.

Two current threads highlight this cognitive error:

In the sub-forum 'News & Current Events':

Teen suspended after refusing to stand for Pledge of Allegiance
​

In the sub-forum 'Ethics and Morality':

Emotions and intuition mislead? Where is the evidence?
​

Polish-American philosopher Alfred Korzybski, responsible for developing a general theory of semantics, is most famous for his dictum: "The map is not the territory." It is important to recognize that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself. Far too many people fall prey to this fallacious line of reasoning and is often imbued with high, reflexive emotionality. Here is an example of a marine "rescuing" the flag but missing the point. Just as a map is not the territory, so is a flag not the actual nation itself. Or this article on a martial arts dojo going over a list of rules of what not to do with one's colored belt lest one commit an act of disrespect (while ironically conceding in part the silliness of such attitudes).

Consider the absurdity of the first hyperlinked thread above regarding school officials punishing a student for refusing to stand for the pledge to the flag. The irony here is that force of government is being used here to strengthen the SYMBOLS of freedom while undermining real freedom. This is not a new phenomenon. Most societies have systematically encouraged the habitual confusion of symbols with things symbolized. For instance, if a Japanese schoolhouse caught fire, it used to be obligatory in the days of emperor-worship to rescue the emperor's picture, even at the risk of one's life.

So let us think clearly and avoid bewilderment, because those of us who cannot understand such distinctions are in danger of ending up with every possible symbol, such as the symbol of freedom yet with no actual freedom at all.

 

[Received]

Thing is, for lots of people, they prefer the map over the territory not because they're epistemically lacking (many are), but because you can't get tribal with the reality nearly as much as you can with the symbol -- not at all, actually. So people protect the flag without thinking of what it stands for precisely because the flag as a symbol unites them much more than what the symbol objectively represents. Many people would say, "to hell with objective reality," if you pushed them far enough on this point.

 

[Paradoxum]

Well I agree... how can I not?

 

[poolerboy0077]

Thing is, for lots of people, they prefer the map over the territory not because they're epistemically lacking (many are), but because you can't get tribal with the reality nearly as much as you can with the symbol -- not at all, actually. So people protect the flag without thinking of what it stands for precisely because the flag as a symbol unites them much more than what the symbol objectively represents. Many people would say, "to hell with objective reality," if you pushed them far enough on this point.

You're likely right on that. People love to circle around sacred objects as my favorite psychologist Jonathan Haidt would put it. Once they circle around such a sacralization, morality tends to bind them into teams but blind them from looking at said sacralization with any sober objectivity.

 

[FireDragon76]

You're likely right on that. People love to circle around sacred objects as my favorite psychologist Jonathan Haidt would put it. Once they circle around such a sacralization, morality tends to bind them into teams but blind them from looking at said sacralization with any sober objectivity.

OK... that's just your opinion. Who's to say that standing up for symbols isn't really a good thing in itself?

As someone from a Christian tradition that values "symbols" a great deal, separating the symbol from the thing symbolized is very problematic, especially in regards to the Eucharist. The "symbol" and the thing signified are intimately linked.

"Freedom" is not an end it itself, not even the enlightenment thinkers like Locke suggested this. They always were thinking of freedom in terms of actualizing a greater good- a positive freedom.

 

[poolerboy0077]

OK... that's just your opinion. Who's to say that standing up for symbols isn't really a good thing in itself?

Well it's not really *my* opinion. The "map is not the territory" dictum is from Korzybski and the idea that morality binds and blinds is from psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who actually has data to show this is true (and he throws atheists as well as the religious under the bus for this).

As someone from a Christian tradition that values "symbols" a great deal, separating the symbol from the thing symbolized is very problematic, especially in regards to the Eucharist. The "symbol" and the thing signified are intimately linked.

The problem isn't a mere symbol. It's specifically in confusing the symbol for the thing symbolize and subsequently thinking and behaving as thought they're one and the same. What you've described is an example that manifests in a benign way. I could conversely point to René Magritte's painting The Treachery of Images of a smoking pipe telling his audience that it is not a pipe. Confusing it for an actual pipe likely won't lead to catastrophe because not every instance of confusing maps for territories leads to catastrophe, but it is nevertheless important to recognize that we are prone to doing this.

"Freedom" is not an end it itself, not even the enlightenment thinkers like Locke suggested this. They always were thinking of freedom in terms of actualizing a greater good- a positive freedom.

There's nothing wrong with abstractions or even visions of what could be rather than what is. That's not really what I'm talking about. My reference to freedom was but a mere comical example of the confusion of maps and territories in which people, in their attempt to defer sacredness to symbols, end up undermining the thing they symbolize.

 

[FireDragon76]

I always find the pledge of allegiance disturbing, because it resembles the sort of things the Roman emperors did centuries ago with Christians and other religious minorities. Plus, it was implemented at a time when American politics was explicitly anti-Communist, and I have to admit I believe as a Christian unwavering commitment to capitalism isn't a virtue. I'm not saying I support communism, but, I'm not in favor of the polemicism that the Cold War brought.

 

[digitalgoth]

I always find the pledge of allegiance disturbing, because it resembles the sort of things the Roman emperors did centuries ago with Christians and other religious minorities. Plus, it was implemented at a time when American politics was explicitly anti-Communist, and I have to admit I believe as a Christian unwavering commitment to capitalism isn't a virtue. I'm not saying I support communism, but, I'm not in favor of the polemicism that the Cold War brought.

On of the inherent problems with any dogmatic system is that it tends to not allow differences in opinion. The only way to ensure this is through standard fascist controlling practices.

I never did the pledge of allegiance. I went to international schools growing up. It seemed like Nazism when I came to the U.S and saw it every day. I just stayed quiet.