The map tries to represent the territory faithfully.
The map consciously misrepresent the territory. But you can still infer through the malevolent map some things about the territory.
The map does not represent the territory at all but pretends to be 1. Difference to 2 is that 2 is still taking the territory as base case and changing it while 3 is not at all trying to look at the territory.
The map is the territory. Any reference on the map is just a reference to another part of the map. Claiming that the map might be connected to an external territory is taken as bullshit because people are living in the map. In the optimal case the map is at least self consistent.
Do you find this an intuitive framework? I find the implication that conversation fits neatly into these boxes or that these are the relevant boxes a little doubtful.
Are you able to quickly give examples in any setting of what 1,2,3 and 4 would be?
Maybe a different framework to look at it:
The map tries to represent the territory faithfully.
The map consciously misrepresent the territory. But you can still infer through the malevolent map some things about the territory.
The map does not represent the territory at all but pretends to be 1. Difference to 2 is that 2 is still taking the territory as base case and changing it while 3 is not at all trying to look at the territory.
The map is the territory. Any reference on the map is just a reference to another part of the map. Claiming that the map might be connected to an external territory is taken as bullshit because people are living in the map. In the optimal case the map is at least self consistent.
Do you find this an intuitive framework? I find the implication that conversation fits neatly into these boxes or that these are the relevant boxes a little doubtful.
Are you able to quickly give examples in any setting of what 1,2,3 and 4 would be?