The correspondence of map to territory is as real as we make it socially and mentally through our behaviors and choices.

It *does* have material and physical presence. The unreality s in the analogizing process.

Here is a set of lines. They exist.

Here is a geographical location that I am standing on. It exists for I am here.

The lines drawn exist.
The territory itself exists.

The correspondence between one and the other as being the same thing may be based on analytical/synthetic agreement but the correspondence is the unreality, not the lines.

But then there is the pragmatic/behaviorist matter:

If we act “as if” those lines on the map correspond to reality, and we do things to enforce the map lines on appear as being “real”, we *create* the lines.

We turn them from lines on paper into lines on territory, in a pragmatic/behaviorist fashion.

Our brains may even map out the territories as actually HAVING those lines. They exist as patterns in the brain as they exist on the map.

The correspondence of map to territory is as real as we make it socially and mentally through our behaviors and choices.

In short, we say it’s there, it’s there. Can’t see it but if you step across the territory whose map shows a line there and you get shot and die, for PRAGMATIC purposes, the line on paper has become enacted in reality in every way possible except a strip of paint on the grass.

In short, the map is the territory and the territory is the map. We enrich the territory with the map and enrich the map with more knowledge of the territory. Because this is a *human process* involving _humans_, the map is the territory. What else do we follow in our brains? Socially? Maps. We either follow someone else’s map or make our own maps to put upon the territory.

But where is there raw territory without an interpreter? It exists most likely but without mapping, it might as well not.

Consider this: For you to say, “This = symbolic. That = Real”. – you are also following a map of a territory and applying it. It’s unavoidable.

FOR EXAMPLE:

In _your_ map, borders MUST ONLY have material OR physical presence to be considered REAL.

That is your map that YOU are applying.

Physical presence; If I walk up to this unphysical and immaterial border, and get shot, well a very REAL bullet is going through my very real body.

Believing that the line has no materials or physical presence in reality results in me dead just the same. It’s hard to avoid pragmatism.

Your theories are therefore incomplete and do not reflect things as they are.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− 3 = three

Leave a Reply