Talk:Map–territory relation

Content issues
This article needs some serious work - I'm going to add the cleanup tag in a second. The original (before the merge) content appears to be about 50% quotes from other sources, not original work. -Seth Mahoney 23:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I propose removal of the sentence about NLP ("The originators of NLP have been explicit that they owe this insight to general semantics."), firstly because it just seems gratuitous in the general article content, secondly because, if even Wikipedia reports that NLP is a discredited science ("Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[26] and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited".[27]"), why is NLP mentioned at all as using this concept as inspiration?--David Be (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Another proposal: in the 'Relationship' section, there are 3 paragraphs about someone called Bateson. He seems to have nothing to add to deepen or explain, so chop these out? Cheers. Cheesusfreak (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair Use Image
I'm copying bit of this discussion from Sean Blacks talk page, having notified him of my intent a few days ago:

MB: Hi Sean. Regarding your edit here: Could you please let me know what part of WP:FUC you were thinking of when you removed the image? My understanding is that if it is out of context we cannot use the image. But is it really out of context? Doesn't it qualify as critical commentary on the work in question since the article is called The map is not the territory and the work is illustrating the same thing?

SB: Perhaps. But it's a borderline case, so it's probably best to just keep it as a link.

MB: Perhaps it's best to achieve consensus on this. I think it isn't borderline and it's almost a textbook example of when a fair use claim is appropriate. But then again I'm no lawyer. I'd like to copy our discussion to the talk page and ask for a 3rd opinion (or 4th and so on) on the matter.

AR: IMHO, there shouldn't be any deleting of images from templates in respect of the "fair use" issue without there being prior consensus on the interpretation and application of the fair use rules to the particular instance. --Aquarius Rising 03:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated the image temporarily. But I'd appreciate some more input from other editors. What are your thoughts? Can the image stay as fair use? &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  06:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Try to comment about the image more, or send it to René Magritte. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 06:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Tempshill 22:48, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) says for this to be acceptable under fair use, "2. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the most famous work by this artist, illustrates his technical work, and gives probably the most famous example of representational surrealism."
 * IMO, the image illustrates an important point in a way that seems to satisfy fair use. Its probably best to get another opinion. --&#39;c&#39; 12:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't see what the image has to do with the article. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 13:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is quite common for Korzybski "the map is not the territory" and Rene Magritte's surrealism to be to illustrate the same point that, "perception always interceeds between reality and ourselves". See for example, p.15-16 Visual Intelligence: Perception, Image, and Manipulation in Visual Communication by Ann Marie Barry(bio) --&#39;c&#39; 23:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you include this reference in the bottom section as per Zscout370's suggestion, if you have time. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  19:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's it! That about wraps this up then. Thanks. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  11:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Simulacra Argument
About "map within a map": what's wrong with the idea? Consider fractals like the Mandelbrot set.

---

"Today abstraction is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror, or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: A hyperreal."

The argument reflects a misunderstanding of the map-territory-scheme. The source(territory) of the simulation(map) is in the consciousness of the creator. If for example i create a videogame, then i first will have an idea about it(the source/territory) and then program the videogame(the map). But the videogame will not be exactly the same as my original idea of it. Creation allows us to "inject" maps into reality. The source of this reality-manipulation is our consciousness. Thus, creation is a map-territory relationship with exchanged roles(the source is "I" and the target is "reality"). Map and territory are *relative*! I am surprised that the author of simulcra did not understand this, since relativism is what the map-territory-scheme tried to describe in the first place. Then again, misunderstandings were to be expected, because the map-territory-scheme is incomplete: It does not account for perception AND projection, but instead only one of the two at a time - it does not allow to visualize an entire projection->reality->perception scenario - because its "scope" only reaches half of the way. - by Lyx - --82.141.51.61 23:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hyphen, dash, or slash?
Should this not, in fact, more properly be written as the “map/territory relation”? Binary opposition (/distinction). That postmodern slash and all. I'll change it in a few days if no one has any objection. Anonymous 57 19:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thought, Googling for "map territory" -wikipedia gives a bunch of hits for the "map/territory conundrum" and the "map/territory distinction," and seemingly fewer for "map-territory." I'll change it now. Anonymous 57 19:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The slash violates Manual of Style. Fixed. — Bigwyrm watch me wake me 10:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fallacy of misplaced concreteness
Added this link to the see also section, as it appears to be the basis for this concept. And yet, the article says nothing about Whitehead. Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

teachers of "map not territory"
How can you leave out Marshall McLuhan. See "Understanding Media." Wilhkar (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Wilhkar

What about the famous Eschaton scene in David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest? -JMP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.104.248 (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Worth referencing Plato’s Allegory of the Cave as possibly the earliest elucidation of this principle?Luan Hanratty (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Borges' Apocryphal Quote
Is "apocryphal" the correct word. In Royce's The World and the Individual, available on Archive.org, he begins a discussion (in the Supplemental Essay) as follows: "let us suppose, if you please, that a portion of the surface of England is very perfectly levelled and smoothed, and is then devoted to the production of our precise map of England. That in general, then, should be found upon the surface of England, map constructions which more or less roughly represent the whole of England, — all this has nothing puzzling about it. Any ordinary map of England spread out upon English ground would illustrate, in a way, such possession, by a part of the surface of England, of a resemblance to the whole. But now suppose that this our resemblance is to be made absolutely exact, in the sense previously defined." Royce goes on for awhile.

Borges may have massaged, and shortened considerably, the quote, but the idea is still Royce's (it is also discussed in Russell's Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy).

151.205.183.66 (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's more of a paraphrase than an apocryphal quote. Phette23 (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

snipped this chunk out of the lede - it seems like OR
— Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardLane  (talk • contribs)  05:18, October 1, 2011‎

indirect / potential resource ?
From Talk:Cognition # Science News regarding the Lateral occipital cortex ... Science News resource, regarding the Lateral occipital cortex (see related Occipital lobe and Lateral occipital sulcus) An excerpt ... Maybe more general associations and language \ vision relationships ... also related Knowledge. 99.109.125.146 (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If that’s a TV, this must be the den; To the brain, scenes are sums of objects by Laura Sanders October 22nd, 2011; Vol.180 #9 (p. 16)
 * Doesn't seem relevant. That quote doesn't even seem related.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
After a few years sporadically reading and writing Wikipedia, I stumbled across this article. It's by far the one I've been happiest to find. --Northernhenge (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, I found this article because I'm reading Index, A History of the (which took me to On Exactitude in Science, which brought me here) and wanted to tell you that I not only share your happiness in finding it, but that I'm also made all the more so by seeing a lovely comment too! – spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 07:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Section Ordering
It seems a bit odd to me that this article begins with criticism of the original statement (e.g. Bateson saying essentially "the territory is a map") rather than an explanation of its history. Would it make sense to swap the two sections, putting "The map is not the territory" before Relationship? The former discusses the actual history of the quote and seems to be a better starting point. The latter is mostly texts that problematize the original statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phette23 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Bullet Points
What is the purpose of the two bullet points: [*]A) A map may have a structure similar or dissimilar to the structure of the territory...   [*]B) A map is not the territory. The bullet points seem disjointed and out of place. I don't know enough about the content here to edit this. My particular comment may seem a quibble considering the massive changes this page needs in order to make it more coherent. There is a lot of good information, but, man, it's all pretty incoherent and unconnected. Mvblair (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Peirce is missing
Article should include some discussion of Charles S. Peirce's take on the map analogy. -- 77.179.100.92 (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Valery's statement is false
Why? because it's a simple statement, so it falls under it's own principe, and it is false too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.133.241.127 (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Exoteric and esoteric
There is a paragraph on exoteric vs esoteric knowledge which is enlightening. Unfortunately -- although the terms are used here in a technical, scientific way -- their definitions in the sense used here are not to be found in ordinary dictionaries. Perhaps a citation or reference could be added by someone more familiar with this topic? As things currently stand, the terms exoteric and esoteric as used here are linked to articles on esotericism and the occult, which is highly misleading. Disambiguation is lacking on that end. Perhaps it would be better to unlink the terms exoteric and esoteric here until more appropriate, disambiguated articles exist for those terms. Ps8v9 (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Good points. The Exoteric link is fine, but the Esoteric one was misleading, so I removed it. And put a tag for these specialized uses of the terms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for attending to this issue. I appreciate how you handled it. Ps8v9 (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Counterexamples
Counter arguments exist in the social sciences but counter examples exist in physics. 2022 Nobel Prize in physics awarded for proving the Bell Inequality, proving there is no additional structure in the uncertainty of quantum mechanics. This requires QM isn't a model but a perfect description of reality, we can't probe a deeper reality to better understand the mysteries of QM because there isn't a deeper reality to probe, our model is now a description of reality--the map is now the territory. Broader physics highlights this counter example by the mere mystery of physical constants--these imply an inaccessible external reality, but still we can't probe here so the map is the territory.

It's better to understand sociology and the broader social sciences and problems of these sciences as necessarily unifying map with territory. The usefulness of social maps is itself a social construct, a means to power and not a map. This makes all the maps of the social writ large also the territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.229.222.33 (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)