Where is the conflict? It can be both true that, for example, a cup is a thing reified in the map and there is some aspect of the territory that cup predicts, at least based on how it affects a map.
Of course you want a map that describes the territory, but that does not mean the same thing as ontology = metaphysics.
Can you give an example of describing the territory that does not include reification?
I would accept “the indented torus collection of covalent bonded atoms at approximately [1′ x 2 ′ x 2 ′ with my brain as the origin point] emits electromagnetic radiation primarily in the 650-680 nm range” (ie “That cup is red”), but I suspect that you would not.
So, what is the difference between that episiotomy (anything you can say draws a map) and mine (some communication describes the territory)? Like: on what kinds of questions would they lead to different answers? Is one of them faster, or less likely to lead to errors? Is there some other distinction in effect that I just can’t conceive?
Um, you literally just said two posts up that you can’t say anything that does not involve drawing a map. That you are defining “the territory” to be out of reach of mere words.
I’m asserting that “the territory” should be defined to be at the limit of what words can describe, but still within bounds. I’m literally saying “take your meta-map of how maps & territory work, and move one inferential step towards the position “there is no map, it’s all territory.”″
Where is the conflict? It can be both true that, for example, a cup is a thing reified in the map and there is some aspect of the territory that cup predicts, at least based on how it affects a map.
Of course you want a map that describes the territory, but that does not mean the same thing as ontology = metaphysics.
Can you give an example of describing the territory that does not include reification? I would accept “the indented torus collection of covalent bonded atoms at approximately [1′ x 2 ′ x 2 ′ with my brain as the origin point] emits electromagnetic radiation primarily in the 650-680 nm range” (ie “That cup is red”), but I suspect that you would not.
I can’t, because that’s impossible. There’s nothing I can say that does not involve drawing a map.
So, what is the difference between that episiotomy (anything you can say draws a map) and mine (some communication describes the territory)? Like: on what kinds of questions would they lead to different answers? Is one of them faster, or less likely to lead to errors? Is there some other distinction in effect that I just can’t conceive?
This question remains confused so I can’t answer it in good faith, because I’ve already rejected its premise above.
Um, you literally just said two posts up that you can’t say anything that does not involve drawing a map. That you are defining “the territory” to be out of reach of mere words.
I’m asserting that “the territory” should be defined to be at the limit of what words can describe, but still within bounds. I’m literally saying “take your meta-map of how maps & territory work, and move one inferential step towards the position “there is no map, it’s all territory.”″
Then, go back and review my previous questions.