College of Cartographers has a nice secret society ring to it. It’s versatile as well. I can imagine it being applied to explorer-adventurers out to conquer terra incognita or a shadowy group governing the world.
“That’s another thing we’ve learned from your Nation,” said Mein Herr, “map-making. But we’ve carried it much further than you. What do you consider the largest map that would be really useful?”
“About six inches to the mile.”
“Only six inches!” exclaimed Mein Herr. “We very soon got to six yards to the mile. Then we tried a hundred yards to the mile. And then came the grandest idea of all! We actually made a map of the country, on the scale of a mile to the mile!”
“Have you used it much?” I enquired.
“It has never been spread out, yet,” said Mein Herr: “the farmers objected: they said it would cover the whole country, and shut out the sunlight! So we now use the country itself, as its own map, and I assure you it does nearly as well.
From Sylvie and Bruno Concluded by Lewis Carroll, first published in 1893.
That name is really, really, cool. The only thing that gives me pause is this: Would we regret a cool, secret society-sounding name? Defending an -ism sounds professional and serious. Would you really feel comfortable explaining to a complete stranger or a skeptical family member that you’re part of a group called the College of Cartographers? And that this has nothing to do with actual maps. I take it we want a name with which to engage the rest of the world– not a name that best refers to a secret society of rationalists in a science fiction novel.
Still its a really cool name so if you want to start a secret society...
But rationality is already considered a serious subject; and so the 12V shows that it’s possible to think about these matters in a different way than usual. The message is very clearly rationalist; the tone is not. You can go many places for dull, sober big words about rationality, and most rationalists will have already encountered them. Those who see something new in 12V may be inspired to check out the link on the back cover.
It’s supposed to be strange. Strange gets attention. Strange sticks in the mind. Strange makes the truth memorable. Other suggestions are possible, I guess, but can the result be equally strange?
Strange will get attention… from the wrong crowd. We want to attract the most sober, most rational crew possible. Transhumanism/Singularitarianism in the hands of the sci-fi fringe is really not the way it should be, in my opinion. It’s the clever normal people who are really worth persuading.
So as not to make this an a discussion via dueling quotations let me add something of my own. In addition to not attracting the most sober, rational folk we want to not alienate people who think themselves rational, sober minded people. Such people might not recognize the truth if it bit them on their behind. They’ll pay attention to form more than content and they’ll take a serious form to be a sign of serious content. The reason to care what they think is two fold. First, everyone has family like this and I think recruiting is probably easier when your group is respected and without stigma. Second, these people sometime guard gates to influence- school boards, university department heads, etc. So if you have an agenda for a rationalist-type education system, strange probably hurts. No?
I’m not so sure. Secret societies are considered strange right now, but the masons wielded power and influence for hundreds of years. It seems to me likely that secret societies aren’t fashionable right now. And if we form an amazing, effective secret society, they could become fashionable. The question is, would the trappings of a rationalist conspiracy help or hurt us in the long run?
Of course, it would be a lot more fun to do it this way.
Entering rationalist porn territory- but one option would be doing both. You’d have a respectable, serious organization that conveyed legitimacy to certain important ideas that are advocated in public. But the organization would really be a front for the secret society of cartographers.
Which is exactly what we’ll point out when we’re accused of being a front organization for some secret society: “Absolutely. Here’s our website about it. Sorry, I’m all out of pamphlets summarizing our conspiracy, but I can get some to you tomorrow.” :)
Some people have speculated that facetiously adopting cult features could help us ward off cultishness, but you’re right that we don’t want to advertise ourselves as that.
Driving some days ago, I realized I had mixed up my cardinal directions. I’ll need to completely remake my mental map of that part of the city, and that that will take some work because I am quite used to thinking of it the other way. I think this is nicely analogous to my experience with trying to be more rational: it’s a willingness to amend the map, even though it requires some effort. The map wasn’t so bad, but can be better.
College of Cartographers has a nice secret society ring to it. It’s versatile as well. I can imagine it being applied to explorer-adventurers out to conquer terra incognita or a shadowy group governing the world.
I’ve always enjoyed Lewis Carroll’s talk of maps:
From Sylvie and Bruno Concluded by Lewis Carroll, first published in 1893.
Only a single mile to the mile? I’ve seen maps in biology textbooks that were much larger than that.
So much for “the map is not the territory”, I guess.
That name is really, really, cool. The only thing that gives me pause is this: Would we regret a cool, secret society-sounding name? Defending an -ism sounds professional and serious. Would you really feel comfortable explaining to a complete stranger or a skeptical family member that you’re part of a group called the College of Cartographers? And that this has nothing to do with actual maps. I take it we want a name with which to engage the rest of the world– not a name that best refers to a secret society of rationalists in a science fiction novel.
Still its a really cool name so if you want to start a secret society...
To quote our Master Cartographer:
From Roko’s response
So as not to make this an a discussion via dueling quotations let me add something of my own. In addition to not attracting the most sober, rational folk we want to not alienate people who think themselves rational, sober minded people. Such people might not recognize the truth if it bit them on their behind. They’ll pay attention to form more than content and they’ll take a serious form to be a sign of serious content. The reason to care what they think is two fold. First, everyone has family like this and I think recruiting is probably easier when your group is respected and without stigma. Second, these people sometime guard gates to influence- school boards, university department heads, etc. So if you have an agenda for a rationalist-type education system, strange probably hurts. No?
I’m not so sure. Secret societies are considered strange right now, but the masons wielded power and influence for hundreds of years. It seems to me likely that secret societies aren’t fashionable right now. And if we form an amazing, effective secret society, they could become fashionable. The question is, would the trappings of a rationalist conspiracy help or hurt us in the long run?
Of course, it would be a lot more fun to do it this way.
Entering rationalist porn territory- but one option would be doing both. You’d have a respectable, serious organization that conveyed legitimacy to certain important ideas that are advocated in public. But the organization would really be a front for the secret society of cartographers.
Of course, any society being discussed on a public web site isn’t terribly secret...
Which is exactly what we’ll point out when we’re accused of being a front organization for some secret society: “Absolutely. Here’s our website about it. Sorry, I’m all out of pamphlets summarizing our conspiracy, but I can get some to you tomorrow.” :)
Some people have speculated that facetiously adopting cult features could help us ward off cultishness, but you’re right that we don’t want to advertise ourselves as that.
Cartography seems to be about trivia, like Cyc. Doesn’t seem to be the right connotation.
That reminds me of a scene from the Arrested Development pilot.
Cool! I suggested Map Makers, but I like ‘Something’ of Cartographers better.
… Love the self-deprecating Lewis Carroll/Borges association with creating a map that looks just like reality (same scale, etc).
Driving some days ago, I realized I had mixed up my cardinal directions. I’ll need to completely remake my mental map of that part of the city, and that that will take some work because I am quite used to thinking of it the other way. I think this is nicely analogous to my experience with trying to be more rational: it’s a willingness to amend the map, even though it requires some effort. The map wasn’t so bad, but can be better.
Cartography
—the science or art of making maps (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary)
A Cartographer is not just a Map Maker, but a Scientist and an Artist of Map Making.
Indeed, I would not have hit “Cartographers” if you hadn’t suggested it.