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.
Here is an example which I believe is directionally correct, it took me roughly 20 minutes to come up with it. The prompt is “how do living systems create meaning ”?:
My life feels like it has meaning (sensory-motor behavior and conceptual intentional aspects). Looking at it through an evolutionary perspective, it is highly likely that meaning assignment is the way through which living systems survived. Thus, there has to be some base biological level at which meaning is created through cell-cell communication/ bioelectricity/ biochemistry /biosensoring etc.
Life is just made of atoms. Atoms are just automata. This implies, there is no meaning at the atom level and thus it cannot pop at a higher levels through emergence or some shit. You are delusional to believe there is some meaning assignment in life.
Meaning is something that is defined through the language that we speak. It is well known that different cultures have different words and conceptual framing which implies that meaning is different in different cultures. Meaning thus only depends on language.
Meaning is just a social construct and we can define anything to have meaning. Thus it doesn’t matter what you find meaningful since it is just something you inherited through society and parenting.
I believe points 1-3 are fine, point 4 is kinda shaky.