I think there’s a cultural default to try to reason in base 2 for many issues and it would b interesting to think about more issues in base 3.
That default of thinking in base 2 for example leads to many people taking “The map is not the territory” to be a statement about there being two kinds of things when that wasn’t Korzybski’s intention at all.
It sounds like this amounts to using a version of base 3. I don’t understand what the conceptual significance of this is.
I think there’s a cultural default to try to reason in base 2 for many issues and it would b interesting to think about more issues in base 3.
That default of thinking in base 2 for example leads to many people taking “The map is not the territory” to be a statement about there being two kinds of things when that wasn’t Korzybski’s intention at all.
Turning dichotomies into trichotomies seems useful but it seems unrelated to working in base 3 instead of base 2.