Platt,
I would clarify your reduction of my message. Your reduction makes my
point that the map _IS_ the territory and must always be so. That
couldn't be further from my point, I'm afraid.
>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."
This might actually be the opposite of my point. We are most certainly
capable of experience that is outside the boundaries of our current
maps. It is only in having an overly personal investment/attachment
(egoism) to a particular map that would limit experience. (Climbing an
elevation only to claim the mountain doesn't exist because it's not on
the map). Or rejecting the experience of others because it's not within
our experience. (you can't have seen a ghost because I don't believe in
them). This would be the Dogma Trap I was warning against. Any map
should be flexible (easily corrected/updated/redrawn) to avoid such
traps. Awareness of the maps as MERELY a map is the key here.
>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.
Firstly, I would avoid the word "know", which, for me, carries a
connotation of absoluteness or at least the absence of doubt. I'm not
sure if there can ever be absence of doubt. A better word would be
"perceive" or "value", perhaps.
Secondly, I would put few limitations on our ability to perceive or
value reality or even Reality. The _important_ limitations are only on
our ability to *discuss* them. DQ cannot be discussed with any language
I'm aware of. (maybe the Borg can discuss DQ since they share all
experience commonly without ambiguous communication:-)
It could be argued that the discussion of SQ is quite meaningless. It's
merely apples/oranges and all we can do is share without comparison.
However, since many of us value the exchange of ideas and POV's, we must
first recognize the limitation of the exercise, namely that all we can
discuss is SQ. Then we can pragmatically use a metaphor like
map/territory to make value judgments on our discussion. If the map
matches the territory, it's deemed "useful". Perhaps more importantly,
it's essential to find common experience (territory) before even
attempting to discuss maps. If I'm in a deep canyon, I'll have little
use for your Mountain Top ideas.
I like Wim's comment on this:
"Words are useful if the experience they evoke somehow 'repeats' or
'predicts' other experience. They can help us handle that other
experience better. The map/territory metaphor clarifies this
relationship between two types of experience and the usefulness of one
type of experience to handle the other type. Reading a map helps you not
to get lost in the territory. The map/territory metaphor does not yet
rule out the essential equivalence of both types of experience. Walking
around in the territory may also help reading the map!"
Perhaps some more "walking around" is needed to further the MOQ
discussion before quibbling over the finer points of the map. I'm
concerned that we're dealing with vastly different experience
(territory) amongst ourselves without recognizing it's effect on our
discussion.
-Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk] On Behalf Of Platt Holden
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 8:20 AM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD Stuck with Map/Territory?
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 - 16:06:30 BST