Hi Platt,
I'll summarize what I wrote in one of the essay's I posted.
The Territory is Quality.
The Map is any and all attempts by a human to understand, interpret,
comprehend, etc Quality and Quality Events.
Hence, Humans are map users and map makers. All of science, philosophy,
theology, mystical insight is map making. Every time we open our eyes we
our experiencing Quality but once we try to understand that non-verbal event
we are making and modifying our maps. My idea is that if we study the tools
[these are our biological systems, our linguistic systems (Chomsky's
Universal Grammar), and the process of socialization, the process of
psychological development (Piaget, et al.) & our Cultural systems ] we use
to make maps we can (1)understand why one person's map is different from
another and (2) find a way to communicate amongst others with more humility
knowing that our map is NOT 100% accurate representation of Quality. It
can't be. Quality is infinite. A human map is finite. Hence any one map
can not take in all of the infinite. The two can never be equivalent. The
importance of studying all the tools is that each one affects the outcome.
The tool shapes the tool user. "If the only thing you happen to have is a
hammer, you will tend to treat everything as if it were a nail."
So, I agree with your statement concerning Scott, Marco, Kevin, John B. Bo,
& Wim, with a caveat. From the perspective of how we humans perceive
reality, the 1st person limited perspective, the first cut is
map/territory, which is the same as Internal/External and the same as
Subject [the perceiver]/Object [the perceived]. This perspective is not,
which is what I got jumped on from all sides, is not the perspective of MOQ.
Pirsig is attempting to make a map from a 3rd person omniscient vantage
point. Thus from this hypothetical vantage point first there is Quality and
then the first cut is Dynamic and Static. Pirsig is making a map which is
suppose to be representing the territory. The map/territory or S/O as the
first cut is a map not of Quality but of how we perceive reality. The
map/territory or S/O as first cut is how to make a map [a meta-menu] of the
menu and not of the food. The menu is metaphysics. The food is the
ultimate territory, it is Quality, itself. To use the restaurant metaphor.
That is my take,
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: MD Stuck with Map/Territory?
> Hi Scott, Marco, Kevin, John B., Gary, Bo, Wim, All:
>
> Thanks to one and all who wrote about the map/territory issue that I
> feared was anti-MOQ. Here is a brief summary of what each respondent
> said:
>
> SCOTT:
> Our reality is nothing but maps. "We supply all the form of what we
> perceive." What's out there are not separate things but "signs we don't
> currently know how to read."
>
> MARCO:
> Each level maps the level below it. Also, each level can map itself.
> Example: Biological bacteria "know" inorganic oxygen. Bacteria also
> know my biological body.
>
> KEVIN:
> We're able to experience only what our self-constructed maps permit us
> to experience. So we should treat everyone's unique "path" as equally
> valid to avoid the "Dogma Trap."
>
> JOHN B:
> No problem with using the map/territory metaphor. But the MOQ map
> isn't any better than SOM because all maps, in the end, are just words
> that cannot alleviate man's suffering.
>
> GARY:
> We make maps of the limited data provided by our senses. To discover
> how we make maps, we should first study our sensory system.
>
> BO:
> The MOQ, like any metaphysics, is a map that resides at the
> intellectual level but at a place higher than the SOM map, enabling us to
> see SOM's shortcomings.
>
> WIM:
> The map/territory is a metaphysical "first cut" of Reality, as is
> subject/object. "As a metaphor I don't see a problem in it, as long as
> you are clear what IS the metaphysics that you want to use as context."
>
> A couple of comments. Scott, Kevin and Marco appear to say that we
> all we can ever know are maps of reality. But if that's so, logic would
> demand that they must already know reality because they say it's
> incapable of being mapped.
>
> John B. argues that metaphysics, maps, and words can do nothing to
> alleviate spiritual suffering. But words and maps are used by spiritual
> guides to suggest activities that may help. People also seek relief in
> prayer maps.
>
> Gary takes a reductionist approach by suggesting we should examine
> how the nervous system produces maps, but he doesn't say whether
> the nervous system is also map or not.
>
> Bo says the MOQ map is more encompassing and therefore better than
> SOM. Good point. (Suggests to me that SOM is like a 1492 map of the
> world compared to a modern MOQ map.)
>
> Wim provided me with the best clue to solve my personal quandary. The
> map/territory split is really the same as the subject/object split. The
> MOQ acknowledges the split by saying maps are the social and
> intellectual value patterns while territories are inorganic and biological
> patterns. So long as I specify the metaphysical context of my remarks
> when there's a possibility of confusion, I and my audience should be
> able to understand one another.
>
> But possibilities for misinterpretation are always present, as indeed this
> post may prove. (-:
>
> Platt
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:23 BST